Design Studio III Magazine

Marino, SA

Co-Living

Scuba Community

Beau Viljoen A1803655

Community 1. A group of people living in the same place...

2. The condition of sharing...

Contents Co-Living Research ‘A New Urban Utopia’

3 4

Precedent Analysis

5

Survey Results

7

Community Profile

9

Spacial Analysis

11

Conceptul Design

13

Final Design

15

Co-Living Research What is co-living?

Co-living as defined by Coliving.com,

“is a community living concept for like-minded people to live, work, and play together. Living spaces are well designed, fully furnished, with incidentals and utilities covered by one bill. Catering to various living styles and tastes, the main value of the coliving experience is access to the community.”

As stated, the main focus of co-living is ‘access to the community.’ This is the driving point behind most co-living environments. A main way of achieving this is by allowing residents to share areas with eachother that they otherwise would not. Things like bathrooms, living spaces and kitchens. This mindset forces people together, allowing them to communicate and develop friendships and communities.

By making a co-living environment attractive to certain, specific demographics, the residence will likely attract like-minded people or people in a already similar working sitution. This again helps build communities as these people will more easily develop friendships.

Co-living has various benefits, including affordability, convenience and community. These benefits alone make co-living an instantly attractive lifestyle to an ever growing number of people around the world. This is also largely thanks to it’s ability to cater for almost any individual’s situations, whether they are working in office or at home, studying or even travelling. Different lifestyles in the same co-living environment help develop larger, more diverse communities.

3

A New Urban Utopia Jan Gehl’s journey During SPACE10 reporter James Clasper’s interview with the now famous Danish architect and urban planner, Jan Gehl, a point of discussion brought up was an architect’s relation to the people that buildings are designed for, rather than the structures themselves. Gehl mentions a conversation he had with his wife, Ingrid, a psychologist where she asked “Why are architects not interested in people? Why don’t they teach you anything about people in the school of architecture?”

This point was a major factor in beginning Gehl’s research. In 1966 he received a research grant from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts to study ‘the form and use of public spaces.’ He and Ingrid spent 6 months travelling through various Italian cities studying how people lived. What people did, when they did it, why and for how long. This built a picture for Gehl on how people use a city and what an individual’s relationship is with a city.

The reporter asked Gehl what the most memorable moment was for him during those 6 months. Gehl’s reply was very telling on what he had found and what would help him later on in his urban designing. He replied, “there were no memorable examples because everything we saw was there every day.” This highlighted the ordinality of these cities. Jan and Ingrid had lived in these cities, studying its residents and found that there was nothing extraordinary about them or the people living there. There are no mysteries to how people live.

Gehl’s final point was that cities, as large and as vibrant as they can be, may seem very messy and very chaotic, but below the surface, if one is willing to do some digging, there is a great sense of order and design. This conclusion is called ‘organised complexity’ and was originally drawn by urban studies influencer, Jane Jacobs.

Upon Jan’s return to Copenhagen, after his 6-month investigation, he realised that no matter when or where, people’s behaviours are generally the same. This realisation was a key driving force as he continued his studies in people-to-city relations and furthered his career as architect and urban designer.

The next step for Gehl was finding out how to implement some of his findings and ideas. He began with cars, stating “every city has a department for traffic and transport engineering, but none has a department for public life and pedestrians.”

Gehl, with his new-found knowledge, became that department.

By the 1960s, Gehl’s home city of Copenhagen began an experiment in urban planning. They banned cars completely and pedestrianised all streets in the city’s centre. While there were initial concerns that these seemingly harsh rules would hurt businesses, they were proven false. The city wanted to turn these features permanent, now allied by Jan. This began his work as an urban consultant.

Jan Gehl, aged 84

Newspaper article, ‘observing people in Italy’

4

Precendent Analysis High Street House, London Developers Tom and James Teatum designed a co-living model located in West London.

The building features multiple smaller ‘homes’ within, mainly to seperate bedrooms.

Other than this, the building is entirely shared by its residents, which includes a kitchen, dining room, laundry and library among other facilities. The model allows residents of all ages access to areas of socialising, relaxing, working and learning.1 The smaller homes within the building all feature an entirely unique aesthetic, allowing its residents to have some sense of ownership and individualism. Each is fitted with a bed platform and movable storage units to maximise internal space. Each apartment features deep-set windows and skylights, wood-lined walls with a partially enclosed bedroom area.2 Co-creator James Teatum states that most residents ‘typically come to London for a specific period of three to twelve months, to work or learn.’ The first residents of the High Street House arrived in late 2020. This set includes an 18 year old student as well as a couple in their 70s. One of the features making the High Street House unique among other co-living environments is its accessability to all ages. This is mainly due to its inclusion of seperate sleeping areas among shared spaces, making the living experience more dynamic among all ages.1

Figure 1. A bedroom featuring integrated storage units

Figure 2. Rear entrance for the house

Figure 3. Curved stairway, further maximising space

Figure 4. The building facade

The High Street House is also a very affordable living option, with monthly rent starting at about $1625.2 In comparison, the average monthly rent for furnished accommodation in Australia exceeds $2,000.3 The low cost, paired with the social advantages of coliving, along with levels of privacy provided, makes living in the High Street House a unique co-living experience.

5

1. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/02/04/noiascape-high-street-house-co-living-teatum-teatum/ 2. https://www.we-heart.com/2021/01/12/high-street-house-noiascape-co-living-west-london/ (Fig.1-4) 3. https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/australia

One of the major motivators behind the creation of the High Street House was Tom and James’ ideas for maximising space, with James stating, ‘Look at how space is used, and more importantly, how it’s used everyday... There’s a finite amount of land, and we need to reuse what we’ve got. There’s a move toward higher buildings. We’re trying to reprogram them.’4 By creating smaller, more shared living areas, the designers have achevied this goal and created a unique, constantly evolvintg, co-living community.

Ideas in the High Street House that I may look to include in my design is how it provides its residents with some sense of ownership while still behing a co-living environment. While having seperate bedrooms may defeat some of the purpose, it is still important for residents to have some levels of privacy. It’s impressive use of space is another key feature that I will look to incorporate in my design, as well as it’s wholly unique aesthetic and use of colour.

Figure 7. A rendering of the High Street House

While co-living is becoming a more and more viable living option with increasing innovation and a greater number of buildings, the High Street House stands out among the rest with it’s colourful yet purposeful design aimed at maximising space and providing the residents with a unique co-living experience.

Figure 8. Facade of the repurposed building

Figure 5. Shared kitchen tucked into the wall

Figure 6

4. https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/19/17259262/london-apartment-colivingnoisacape-architecture (Fig.7) 5. https://www.dwell.com/article/city-studio-teatum-teatum-architects-londona89b8541 (Fig.5,6,8)

6

Space 10

Survey Results The General Average of people who have taken the survey:

Would prefer couples, single women and single men in their community Prefer to live in the city Think people with a design background would be the best at designing a coliving community Don’t think it matters if the people who design their community have experienced co-living themselves Prefer members to share equal ownership of the house Would pay extra for a service layer to manage all house related items Only want the common areas to come furnished and furnish their own space themselves Want house-members from different walks of life Would rather have set private and communal spaces with clear boundaries of use Think being neat and tidy, honesty and being considerate are the most important qualities in a house-member

Out of the 21 questions asked, the demographic my design will be aimed at (people of all ages in any life situation from Australia) agree with the global average on 19 of them.

Are most comfortable sharing internet, self-sustainable garden and workspaces Want to make sure their private room is off-limits when they’re not home Would love any kind of pet in the house Think 4-10 is the right amount of people for a community Want new house-members to be selected by a consensus vote Would prefer to pay energy costs based on the amount of energy used per person Worry most about the potential lack of privacy Would settle conflicts by talking to that person privately Think the two biggest pros of living with others is having more ways to socialize and splitting costs The points highlighted in bold were the ones that I 100% agreed with

The disagreements come from the questions: What background would be best suited to create the community?

Where the global average decided that a design background would be best and my aimed demographic though an architectural background would be best.

What are the two biggest pros of co-living?

Where the global average thought that having more ways to socialise and splitting costs would be the best. My aimed demographic agreed that having more ways to socialise is one of the biggest pros, but also thought that having another community outside of work or school is a bigger positive than splitting costs.

The first disagreement amphasises my chosen demographic’s need for a well designed, thought out living space.

The second greatly emphasises how important having a new community is, and how important it is to create this community so that it grows and develops relationships. This can be dome by finding like-minded people who share similar values or answers from the survey.

7

Space 10

Survey Results Ownership People prefer to have a vote in who joins the community later on. This option is included for the residents in my design as it allows them to grow and develop a community how they would like to, further strengthening it in the long run.

Space Most people would prefer having clear boundries between private and communal spaces. This will be incorporated in my design, with areas completely private fpr an individual and areas completely shared by the community.

Privacy Throughout the survey results, people almost unanimously tend to worry about a lack of privacy the most. In my design people will only share bedrooms if they’re in a couple or a family, otherwiae they have their bedrooms completely to themselves. Any more private areas may discourage socialising and community building, although members will have privatee plots on the buildings rooftop garden to give more of a sense of ownership.

Service Most agree that they would pay extra for a service layer to manage all household related items. This applies to things like fixing utilities or managing shared car expenses.

Community Size While most prefer being a part of a smaller community (4-10 people), my design will feature a much larger community, but divided into seperate spaces to form smaller communities within the larger group. This allows people to grow comportable around their community first and branch out to other groups later on. This will be done by having seperate apartment blocks around the site.

Diversity People from all walks of life are welcome, but in order to best grow the developing community to begin with, residents will only range from children-adults, either attending school, working in office or at home, studying or staying at home. This will give everyone in the community other people in similar situations to theirs.

Now that we have the survey results, we can see what is important to the chosen community and design the living space accordingly

8

Community Profile The site location is perfectly located between some of South Australia’s best Scuba Diving sites. The community will first and formost be a community of Scuba divers.

The residents will live in site, working or attending school during the week, then go together on dives across SA on weekends. The site could attract residents from accross the globe, looking for a temporary or permanent living space.

There are schools nearby and a railway leading directly to the CBD for working parents. The transportation also works well for students studying in the city. The setting around the site compliments almost any demographic, with long walking and cycling tracks along the coastline. Younger and elderly people alike can enjoy the scenery and trails. Tourists looking for a temporary home or students coming from overseas would greatly benefit from the communal setting, access to the city and scenery around the area.

With the area’s multiple trails, cycling should be encouraged as a prominent mode of transport, both for leisure and to and from locations like the train station, schools etc. With encouragement to find other means of transport, residents will also share 27 available cars, mostly used as trasportation to and from dive sites, though can be used by individuals.

Ideal age groups would primarily include young families and students studying in the city. While the scenery provides a great backdrop, the living environment wouldn’t be ideal for elderly people, as if an accident were to happen during the day, no other residently would likely be home, with children in school and students/adults working or studying somewhere else.

9

A focus for the design will be to make it very environmentally friendly. This includes the building materials, energy usage and types of residents. The residents should share similar values on environmental conservation and protection. This will not only help the communities eco-friendlyness but also allow its residents to form a relationship over common interests, making their co-living experience much more enjoyable.

With a shared garden on the roof of the building, as well as between some of the living spaces, residents will be responsible for taking care of the plants, meaning gardening experience will be encouraged, though it could be an opportunity for residents to bond as they teach each other how to care for the plants.

Most of the community building however, will come from the residents shared interest of Scuba diving. Many will be able to bond over similar experiences and develop a strong sense of community.

Communal COMMUNITY Breakdown BREAKDOWN Families

Couples

Singles

Couples - 9 Total - 10 working from home - 8 working in office

30%

60

50%

Families - 3 Total - 6 children, all attending school - 6 parents,

20%

Ages (Years) 6

17

Singles - 30 Total - 14 studying at Uni - 11 Working in Office - 5 Working from Home

8

10

5

14 11

33

Knowing what the residents do during the day will allow for more considerate room sizes and spacial arrangements, such as having larger communal areas for people working from home.

10

Spacial Analysis Through analysis of the SPACE10 survey results, we found that residents will mostly like to have the building clearly seperate shared spaces from private spaces.

My design will feature clearly seperated spaces. The only fully private areas in the buildings will be the bedrooms. These are large enough to double as study spaces if a resident needs another study area and they can be furnished and designed to fit the resident’s needs. This extra freedom in design help give residents a sense of ownership over their private spaces.

Semi-private areas include the family room balconies and the rooftop shared garden. The family room balconies are considered semi-private as they are out and exposed from the building, but only the room owners will have access to them. he rooftop garden, while a shared space, inludes private plots for residents to plant whatever they like and care for it themselves. This, again gives the residents a sense of ownership and belonging.

Most of the building is completely shared. The entire top floor is a shared space with the laundry area and kitchen accessible to anyone at anytime. The top balcony is the building’s main entertainment area and has enough room for all the residents of a single unit, or even other units, to visit. Shared bathrooms are featured on the middle and bottom floor and a gym/recreational area is situated throughout the centre of the middle floor. A smaller shared area is in the same location of the bottom floor.

Along with these spaces, there will also be a ‘Community Hub,’ serving as the largest shared space. This is where divers can meet after a trip and discuss their experiences or share photos and video.

11

14500

7500

7000

Top Floor The entire top floor is shared by the residents, with the site kitchen and main balcony on this level.

10000

Up

Kitchen

Top Floor

Main Balcony

Pantry

Down

Spacial Breakdown This graph shows how many rooms of a certain type an individual has access to Second Floor The second floor has shared areas in its social area and bathrooms, while the bedrooms are private.

The Roof Garden is a shared space, but residents have their private plots, making it a semi-private area.

B3

B4

10000

B2

B1

Bathroom

Rooftop Garden

Private Balcony

B6

Family Bedrooms

Gym

Bathroom Bottom Floor

Bottom Floor Similarly to the middle floor, the bottom floor has a large shared space in the gym, as well as shared bathrooms and laundry area. Bedrooms are private, however the family rooms have semi-private balconies.

B5

3250

Middle Floor

Laundry

15000

3000

10000

5m

13000

17500

0m

Up

Down

Up

2500

10000 0m

0m

5m

5m

12

Conceptual Design Access points to the site include the Westcliff Court(North), Main road (East) and small gateway (South-West). The Eastern entrance will provide entry for cars while the Northern side will will have a walkway/bike track leading to a bicycle storage area. The carpark is located on the Eastern side of the design, with a road from the main road leading to it. The site will only have 10 shared cars, all stored in the roofed carpark.

The design will feature 4 structures, each housing a maximum of 15 people. A bicycle storage area will be located next to the carpark, east of the buildings with a track leading to Westcliff Court. There are plently of bicycle tracks around the site area. This storage area will encourage residents to use bikes as a primary mode of transport. The main entrances to each building will be on the Southern side, near the car park, with another on the North, both on the top floor. Another entrance will be down on the bottom floor with a walking track towards the beach. Each building only features one stairway although this should be enough as there isn’t much need for people sleeping on the second floor to travel down.

13

Fill

Cut

While some cut-and-fill is necessary in the design, the idea is to leave much of the surrounding site untouched and completely integrating the building with the slope. Not mamy support structures would be necessary as the design is supported through its integration. The steep slope is a design challenge but provides a unique opportunity to explore some creative solutions, as well as providing the site’s residents with spectacular views to the ocean.

The structure will span primarily longways (North-South), to avoid excess weight overhanging from the slope. The design includes three main bodies stacked on top of each other, scaling up the slope. This creates a practical and unique aethestic. This design means the building will have large balconies and outdoor areas, which is important considering it’s location.

Design Concept Laundry

Top Floor Top Floor

Kitchen

Main Balcony

Entrance 0m

Middle Floor

5m

Bedrooms

Bathroom

Rooftop Garden

0m

5m

Bottom Floor

Private Balcony

Family Rooms

Gym/Recreational Area

Kitchen/Laundry Main Entrance

Entertainment Area Bathroom

Rooms 0m

5m

Roof Garden Bathrooms

Section WE

Shared Rooms Room Outlook Bathrooms

14

Final Design This stage 2 design has many differences in spacial development as well as community development compared with Stage 1.

Beginning with the structures themselves, there are many new spaces as well as previous spaces that have been further developed. This is mainly due to the intended community changing from mainly very environmentally conscious gardeners, to a community of scuba divers, although some elements from he previously proposed community remains, mainly through the large open gardening spaces. The change in community has allowed me to create new spaces and demonstrate a greater use of the unique site characteristics. A big structural difference is the greater connection and flow between the buildings. With timber decking wrapping around the living spaces, they make the site seem more like one connected living community, rather than separate areas. Tying in with the proposed ‘scuba’ community, outdoor showers are scattered across the decking, as this is useful for people returning from a dive.

A new reception/shop area has also been implemented. The bottom floor serves as a lobby and store selling dive gear.

15

The top floor is where the site manager/ person manning the lobby can stay. Another major change is the implementation of the ‘Community Hub.’ This structure helps emphasize the togetherness of the community, and how it is connected through scuba diving. The Community Hub serves as the main storage area for dive equipment on the ground floor, and a communal area overlooking the entire site on the top floor.

The car park has had a major redesign, as it now has room for 17 cars, which are shared by the residents. Having a larger number of cars is important as scuba divers who regularly dive together will need to travel together as well. Along with this, the community now also has a shared van, parked underneath the overhang of the Community Hub. The van will do most of the transportation of scuba gear. The primary housing structures remain very similar to the original design, though now with the inclusion of a overhanging laundry area, as well as majorly redesigned interior spaces. I struggled with creating a co-living community during Stage 1 as my community never had a strong identity or direction. This changed once I decided to create a scuba diving co-living community.

26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

Reception

Structure 1

Car park

Structure 2

Community Hub

Structure 3

Shared Garden

Pool

e4

Structur

10m

Site Plan From this site plan, we can see the context of the site and the proposed structures in relation to eachother and the slope.

N

20m

30m

evations 3900

2800

Ground - FL 54

Ground Floor This level has redesigns with the kitchen area. The laundry was removed kitchen,dining and pantry areas were expanded.

BG1 - FL 52

14500

7500

BG2 - FL 50

7000

Up 4304

5696

7500

4500

10000

Structure 1

Kitchen

Top Floor

Main Balcony

Ground - FL 48

Pantry

Down 535

BG1 - FL 46

0m

5m

Below Ground 1 The bathrooms were also completely redesigned, as they were previously too small for the number of occupants.

4046

TF - FL 44

17500

7464

2536

3454

3965

3000

10000

Structure 2 B4

B3

10000

B2

B1 Middle Floor

Ground - FL 50 343

BG1 - FL 48

Bathroom

Rooftop Garden

Down

3750

BG2 - FL 46

Up

0m

3715

4157

Structure 3

Laundry

Private Balcony

B6

Family Bedrooms

Gym

Bathroom Bottom Floor

Ground - FL 48 BG1 - FL 46

15000

2373

13000

7607

5m

Below Ground 2 This floor had the most change.

As well as the bathrooms, the gym area has been fleshed out more and the laundry has been moved to this floor, with an outdoor drying area.

B5 765

3250

BG2 - FL 44

Up

5341

4609

6735

Structure 4

4450

10m

2500

20m

10000 0m

30m

5m

16

400 5800

5000

Ground Floor

Reception Takes care of the community admin, as well as serving as a small shop for essential dive gear.

Bathroom

400

Balcony

Reception/Shop

5800 7800

2000

5800

Carpark

Walkway 5m

5800

0m

First Floor

To Parking

Ground Floor

Wetsuits

Walkway

Up

Storage

Dive Gear x60 residents

Community Hub Ground floor serves as storage for all redisent’s dive gear, including scuba tanks and wetsiuts. The 1st floor is a communal space where events and functions will take place. Divers can share photographs or video of recent dives.

17000

Refill Station

12750

Roof

Air Tanks

0m

Communal Area

5m

Down

Communal Area

6600

8642

8642

Level 1 To Parking

Storage

Ground

Shared Kitchen

Walkway

17

0m

First Floor

Up

0m

5m

5m

The Site’s total built area, including all floor levels for proposed structures =1968.69m2

Building Structure Each living structure is made from brick veneer exterior walls and concrete slab flooring. This structural system helps provide thermal comfort as well as structural support when paired with it’s timber framing and support beams from each level of the structure. Each structure also gives every resident access to direct sunlight and ventilation, through windows and private balconies.

Balconies are present in almost every structure on site.

This was an important inclusion as the view of the ocean and nearby landscpes is a key feature of the site. It was important to take advantage of this and make it a key componet to the design.

18

23 & 24 Westcliff Court Marino,SA