Thesis Project - Politecnico Di Milano - Master of Architecture, Built Environment & Interiors by Ana Pavlovikj

POLITECNICO DI MILANO School Of Architecture and Urban Design Master’s program in “Architecture - Built Environment - Interiors”

Multi-generational Co-living: A solution for loneliness in the older population Different degrees of privacy in a co-living society

Supervisors: Antonio Da Silva Ferreira De Carvalho Stefania Sabatinelli Students: Ana Pavlovikj 939742 Sara Hajimirzashokrollahvazir 940305

Academic year 2020/2021

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to express our very great appreciation to professors Antonio Da Silva Ferreira De Carvalho and Stefania Sabatinelli who we followed in the development of the Master’s degree thesis. We are grateful for the consistency, for their valuable and constructive suggestions during the planning and development of the work.

INDEX

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

DESIGN FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE IN EUROPE

RISK OF LONELINESS IN BIG CITIES FOR ELDERY

ACTIVE AGEING

AGEING IN PLACE

CO-HOUSING

MULTI-GENERATIONAL CO-HOUSING

A SOLUTION FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE IN MODERN SOCIETIES

STUDENTS AND A SOLUTION FOR THEIR NEEDS

A STRATEGY FOR FRAGILE GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETY

SHARED SPACE

WOONERF CONCEPT

SITE ANALYSIS

SITE SELECTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA

URBAN CONTEXT

FUNCTIONALITY

LANDMARKS

GREEN AREAS

CONNECTIONS AND MOBILITY

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

BIKE PATHS

PROJECT

CASE STUDIES

MAIN CONCEPT

STRATEGY AND PROPOSAL

SELECTION OF PROFILES FOR CO-LIVING

TECHNICAL DRAWINGS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES OF IMAGES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABSTRACT

The design and research work presented throughout this paper is carried out during the yearly Thesis Workshop held by Antonio Da Silva Ferreira De Carvalho and Stefania Sabatinelli.

Il disegno e il lavoro di ricerca presentati in questo documento vengono effettuati durante il Workshop di tesi annuale tenuto da Antonio Da Silva Ferreira De Carvalho e Stefania Sabatinelli.

The Workshop is one of a cluster of three Thesis Workshops that aim at understanding the factors that affect the ongoing changes, discussing their implications and developing conceptual, analytical and design tools that can be used to construct new policies that tackle the fragility of contemporary dwelling.

Il Workshop fa parte di un gruppo di tre Workshop di tesi che mirano a comprendere i fattori che influenzano i cambiamenti in corso, discuterne le implicazioni e sviluppare degli strumenti concettuali, analitici e strumenti di progettazione, i quali possono essere usati per costruire delle nuove politiche che affrontano la fragilità degli alloggi di oggi.

PROJECT THEME (CO-LIVING) AND LOCATION

TEMA DI PROGETTO (CO-LIVING)

The concept that we revolved around was designed to solve not one but multiple problems: non-affordable housing for the younger generation, the feelings of loneliness and isolation of the elderly, the alienation of disadvantaged people and the disrupted connections between the neighborhood and the people within it which are among the many that modern neighborhoods face. We wanted to propose a modern solution which naturally creates a community of acceptance and support, which at the same time builds a neighborhood that is connected to the environment around it and invites visitors and tourists to enjoy an afternoon while they explore the center of Milan.

Il concetto trattato è stato disegnato per risolvere non solo uno, ma molteplici problemi: la difficolta dei giovani di accedere ad alloggi convenieti, i sentimenti di solitudine e isolamento degli anziani, l’alienazione delle persone svantaggiate e anche le connessioni interrotte tra il quartiere e le persone al suo interno che alcuni sono tra i tanti che i quartieri moderni affrontano. Abbiamo voluto proporre una soluzione moderna che crea naturalmente una comunità di accoglienza e di sostegno, che allo stesso tempo costruisce un quartiere che è connesso all’ambiente intorno e che invita dei visitatori e dei turisti a godersi un pomeriggio mentre esplorano il centro di Milano.

The project is focused around an empty plot in the Guastalla neighborhood that occupies a relatively central area in the city of Milan. After a thorough analysis of the features of the area we chose the location because of its strong characteristics and functions as well as the heterogeneity of users. Considering its proximity to the city center and its surroundings which consist mainly of educational and medical buildings, our project aims to develop a solution that keeps the area open, enabling a consistent flow of users inside it and amplify its heterogenous nature. The general idea for the project emerged following our initial analysis, lengthy on-field explorations and following experiences on co-living spaces. This gave rise to several foundational principles for our project including the neighborhood’s position and scale with respect to the city layout, the closeness of public services and functions as well as the groups of people that are frequent within.

Il progetto è incentrato su un lotto vuoto nel quartiere Guastalla che occupa un’area relativamente centrale della città di Milano. Dopo un’analisi approfondita delle particolarità dell’area, abbiamo scelto l’ubicazione per le sue caratteristiche e funzioni forti e inoltre per l’eterogeneità degli utenti. Presa in considerazione la vicinanza al centro della città e ai suoi dintorni costituiti maggiormente da edifici con funzione educativa e medica, il nostro progetto ha lo scopo di sviluppare una soluzione che mantiene l’aria aperta permettendo un flusso coerente di utenti al suo interno e che amplifica la sua natura eterogenea. L’idea generale del progetto è emersa in seguito alla nostra analisi iniziale, alle lunghe esplorazioni sul campo e alle successive esperienze sugli spazi di co-living. Questo ha dato origine a vari principi fondanti del nostro progetto compresi la posizione e la scala del quartiere rispetto al layout della città, la vicinanza dei servizi pubblici e delle funzioni pubbliche, e inoltre i gruppi di persone che pi spesso lo frequent errano.

The concepts of co-living and shared space have been both theoretically and practically analyzed as part of the broader European architectural and sociological studies. In our thesis they provides the primary reason for recreating neighborhoods in such a way to preserve and enrich its functions. With the highlighted approach, special care is given to lessen the disruptive effect of the neighborhood redevelopment in regards to the day-to-day habits and activities of its inhabitants.

Tutti e due concetti, quello di co- living e quello di spazio condiviso, sono stati analizzati sia teoricamenti che praticamente come parte degli studi europei più ampi di architettura e di sociologia. Nella nostra tesi forniscono la ragione principale per ricreare i quartieri in modo tale da preservarne e arricchirne le funzioni. Tramite l’approccio sottolineato, si pone cura particolare nel diminuire l’effetto dirompente della ricostruzione del quartiere rispetto alle abitudini e alle attività quotidiane dei suoi abitanti.

INTRODUCTION

Milan is a city of all ages and as such faces problems that disproportionally affect different generations of people. This multi-generational problem can be even more so amplified by the architectural layout of an area and the services it provides. The neighborhood of Guastalla is a prime example for this. Both within Guastalla and around it there are many different specialized medical institutions which make it different from other areas in the city center of Milan. However, just next to the largest hospital in the area, Policlinico di Milano, there is also the Universita Degli Studi di Milano which invites into the area a lot of younger people which together with the older generations make the neighborhood of Guastalla a neighborhood with very unique characteristics and at the same time a dense mixture of crossgenerational population. The neighborhood is located in the city center which carries with it the benefits of good public transportation, infrastructure and educational institutions and at the same time access to several green areas around it. The advantages for the project in an area with these characteristics are important because the transportation services allow a steady influx of non-residents to visit the neighborhood. These visitors can also approach it directly from Duomo through Corso di Porta Romana and can also be tempted to visit if they are passing one of the several historical touristic landmarks in the surroundings. After making a thorough analysis and research which we show in Section 4, we came to the conclusion that a community center is one of the best options that can be developed to solve the communal and infrastructural problems that arise in the neighborhood. However correctly identifying the problems in such a heterogeneous neighborhood proved to be a task that required very careful thought and planning. That is why we defined several profiles for the people that will be part of the complex as well as a categorization of places with regards to the level of privacy they offer. Regarding the people, there are three profiles that the community center will help: elderly people, students and an important age-neutral group of people with social problems that we define as fragile people. This last profile encompasses people with troubled past, non-financially independent people or people with impairments. This type of profiling will later help us in identifying more easily the specific issues that each profile faces and figure out solutions that help all of them without crossprofile discrimination. Additionally, the provision of roles and responsibilities in the community center with regards to organization and jobs will be made easier with such profiling in place.

Regarding the categorization of places, we also define four sub-categories that will make up the entirety of the community center and the area in general. Firstly, we define the public spaces which are designed for interaction and socialization between both residents between themselves and residents and visitors. These areas have a main function to connect and integrate the project with the city. Next, we define the semi-public places that are open to the public and generally accessible by anyone but are not completely integrated in the urban context and as such are mainly used by near-by residents. The semi-private spaces are access controlled and accessible by residents and local people only voiding access to outsiders. And lastly, we have the private spaces that are designed for a certain person or a group of people living in the same unit. With these concepts defined, each decision we make regarding the urban and architectural design is well defined in terms of the people it affects and how it uses the space available to solve their issues. In this sense, the urban design of the space helps elderly people by reducing the impact of isolation and making them feel less lonely, while other spaces help students by providing adequate space to carry out their activities. In general, the design of the whole area aims to make sure that no one that is residing there feels like an outcast by providing them a different selection of spaces where they feel happy and providing them roles that best fit their group.

DESIGN FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE IN EUROPE

The issue of aging in the society we live in is more and more evident in everyday life today and will continue to intensify in the future. The increasing life expectancy in the last half a century together with the decreasing birth rates fuel this aging problem and create issues that modern architecture needs to solve (Oláh, 2015). This combined with the quality health care that the elderly receive enables them to lead a more active life in which the feeling of loneliness and isolation can present a big burden. To a degree these feelings can be amplified by the long-standing trend of retirement homes that in theory reinforce the notion of social interaction through common activities but often fail to appreciate the many different needs of each individual in the elderly group. Although they are a viable solution, retirement homes are by no means a model for the future. Through social and urban architectural design, the built environment has the potential to alleviate most of the burden’s elderly people are facing while in the same time benefiting the younger people. Through simple, yet effective minimal design choices such as wider corridors, stair handrails, slightly lower baths we aim to make sure the elderly feel all the benefits of the environment while at the same time not alienating them and making them feel different from other age groups.

RISK OF LONELINESS IN BIG CITIES FOR ELDERY There are many factors that contribute to the risk of feeling loneliness by elderly including their living arrangement, marital status and social isolation (Davidson & Rossall, 2015). Loneliness affects 6–13% of the older population with the presence of social isolation known to be higher affecting 11–24%; interestingly with little change in incidence over the past few decades (Patel, 2019). Social isolation does not automatically lead to negative feelings of loneliness; however, the risk of experiencing loneliness as negative is connected to the loss of social contacts. Older adults as a group are seen as potentially in danger of losing both social contacts and abilities, and are as such more vulnerable to experiencing loneliness as negative. Earlier research on loneliness in Western countries has shown that twenty to forty percent of older adults reported feeling lonely (Larsson, Wallroth & Schröder, 2019). Another factor that contributes to loneliness and poses serious challenges for older people is the urban environment. A city’s-built environment can limit the mobility among older people, discourage social interaction, and increase the

probability of isolation. Indeed, older people who live in neighborhoods with little green space, and fewer social and recreational opportunities, tend to have fewer social networks and a less positive outlook on life. The effects of loneliness and social isolation has been documented to bring with it substantial physical and psychological health risks especially for elderly people (Susan Davidson and Phil Rossall, 2015). Some of the risks include increased blood pressure, heart disease and obesity to name a few and although direct causality between the urban environment and these risks can’t be made, it is important to take these problems into consideration when designing for the elderly. Regarding Italy, current studies (Tilburg, Havens, Gierveld 2004) show that the risk of loneliness is higher than the northern European countries like Germany and Austria. Having this in mind along with the fact that in Italy 40% of elderly aged 75 and more live alone it is not hard to imagine that the problem of the way the urban space is designed can have a crucial impact on their well-being and mood.

ACTIVE AGEING

work can still actively contribute to their families, peers, communities and nations (World Health Organization, 2002). The term “active ageing” was adopted by the World Health Organization in the late 1990s and it is meant to carry out a more precise message than “healthy aging” (Kalache and Kickbusch, 1997). Through a world health report in 1999 held by the World Health Organization (Figure 1 and Figure 2), we can see that the lead factor for the cause of morbidity, disability and mortality are so called noncommunicable diseases (diseases that are not transmissible directly from one person to another) in all regions of the world. Many of these noncommunicable diseases can be prevented or postponed. Research shows that the origins for chronic conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease, begins in early childhood, but the risk of developing these diseases increases as the individuals age (World Health Organization, 2002). Therefore, it is important to address the risks of these noncommunicable diseases throughout the life course, through active aging. As discussed previously, there are many other factors that contribute to the level of a person’s health such as the physical environment and his psychological condition. Active ageing aims help to reimagine all aspects that in one way or another affect it. As seen is (Figure 3) what active aging hopes to achieve is to flatten the persons functionality curve in such a way that it reaches the disability threshold at a later age, meaning the person would be able to stay “active” for a longer period of their life.

With the increase of percentage of old people in the world, ageing is being considered as a key policy issue. The problem of ageing in loose terms can be defined as the process of continuous progressive loss of functional autonomy of an individual over the course of his life (Sarlo, Bagnato and Martinelli, 2019). Having this definition in place it is easy to see that ageing as a process is one that is observed by everyone and considered natural for every living organism. Normally, this process affects different individuals in non-identical fashion both considering its speed and intensity and it is important to devise plans and methods to reduce its effects before it irreversibly degrades the individuals’ health. Making the elderly have access to various activities and giving them social roles allows for them to stay active and improve their physical and mental health. These plans and methods mentioned can be considered together as a single concept called active ageing. Active ageing, as defined by the European Commission, means helping people stay in charge of their own lives for as long as possible as they age and, where possible, to contribute to the economy and society. The word “active” does not mean that the individual or group in question must be physically active or to participate in labor work. Older people who are retired from

Figure 1. Leading causes of death, both sexes, 1998, low and middle-income countries by age Source: World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: a policy framework.

With the emergence of the ageing issue, and the rise of discussions on ‘active ageing’ and ‘ageing in place’ (Davey et al., 2004; Wiles, 2005), older people have become a relevant target in the universal architectural design approach (Sarlo, Bagnato and Martinelli, 2019). Handler mentions that contemporary cities are eminently structured as a set of spaces and facilities imagined, designed and built for young people, whereas older people have never been considered a relevant user component (Handler, 2015). Sarlo, Bagnato and Martinelli mention three main aspects where active aging can have an effect, in an architectural context. These aspects are the interior, building and urban design.

The Interior Design

Figure 2. Leading causes of burden of disease, both sexes, 1998, low and middle-income countries by age Source: World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: a policy framework.

Older people tend to spend most of their day in their homes, and it is important that they are able to carry out domestic activities in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle. An important concern has been raised in the paper and by other scholars when referring to how the design of the interior can have a direct impact on the ability of the elders to complete these domestic activities (Lawton, M. P., Nahemow, L. 1973; Evans et al., 2002).

The Building Design Another aspect to consider is the relation between the inside (the home) and the outside. An activity that is important to all age groups including elderly is the ability to go outside. For older people accessibility to the outside is most of the time more difficult when compared to other age groups. The presence of architectural elements such as stairs, handrails, ramps and elevators can make a huge difference in the possibility for the elderly to go out, which will have a direct impact in their quality of life.

The Urban Design

Figure 3. Maintaining functional capacity over the life course Source: Kalache, Alexandre & Kickbusch, Ilona (1997) A global strategy for healthy ageing.

Even though it does not have as direct of an impact, for frail older people, as the previous two aspects the urban context is still very important when talking about accessibility. This can be anything from features and safety of streets, access to public spaces to availability of shops and access to public transport. All these features directly impact the wellbeing, sense of community and belonging of residents, and this is even truer for older people.

The most evident aspect that can be improved when designing for the elderly is the interior design, due to the fact that it directly impacts their day-to-day activities, and it is the easiest change to implement. The same can be said to a certain extent about the building design, but what is rarely considered is how the change of the urban environment in which the elderly reside can also have a severe impact on how they age. With improving the infrastructure and carefully designing the community within the environment urban design can significantly improve seniors’ well-being.

AGEING IN PLACE Older people mostly prefer living independently in environments which they are familiar with, like their homes. Assuming a positive health situation and easy accessibility to social services, an individual elder person should be able to live independently in their own house. Most of the time whether an old person can live independently comes down to their financial situation and costs of residential and nursing home provision (Chen et al., 2015). Many scholars including (Horner and Bold, 2008) think that ‘ageing in place’ has the potential to provide care for elders at a more appropriate cost than moving to a designated support facility. The (CDC 2019) explains the term ‘ageing in place’ as the ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level. The idea behind this is that living in a similar environment would improve the wellbeing of older people.

CO-HOUSING

Co-housing is a type of communal housing where a group of individuals, often strangers, live in a unit within a complex. Within the unit each person has a private bedroom and bathroom and there is usually a small shared sitting area. The kitchen and living spaces are generally located outside the individual unit, in a place that is shared by all residents of the co-housing unit (Mark Bryan and Rebekah Matheny, 2021). These shared common areas are intended for more than just cooking and eating, there are common areas designated for socializing, relationship building and co-working. To date, the evidence suggests that co-housing decreases isolation in seniors, positively impacts inhabitants’ quality of life and benefits physical and mental health (Glass AP: 2013, 2016). Among intergenerational housing residents, cohousing also increased mutual support and created a sense of community among residents. These feelings could be extended to the neighborhood by increasing the sense of community beyond the boundaries of cohousing, resulting in improved wellbeing among residents. The cohousing model was created in Denmark in the early 1970s as an innovative form of collective housing and in recent years, cohousing has re-emerged in the USA, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan (Ruiu, Maria Laura, 2015). The simultaneous re-emergence of co-housing initiatives in different countries and the international exchange between networks also raise the question on how design and engineering solutions from one country can be transferred to another. In southern Europe, in particular, several years of economic crisis between 2008 and 2018 have re-shaped the role of the public and private sectors for socio-economic development (Michele Bianchi & Marcelo Vieta, 2019). Given this, more and more Italians have been demanding socially responsible and just economic activities focused on solving real and local problems and this has given rise to community co-operatives to manage local commons, regenerate community assets, administer quasi-public services, or produce goods in order to support local communities in their own development projects.

MULTI-GENERATIONAL CO-HOUSING With regards to the problems underlined in the previous section, creating a diverse urban environment with multiple functions for the elderly arises naturally as a possible solution. Creating a multi-generational mix of people accomplishes two very important aspects: firstly, it promotes generational diversity in the area enabling more frequent points of connection between the elderly and the people around them which in turn help with the feeling of isolation that many elders feel in the rather dull environment in the retirement homes. Secondly and in a sense more important, these co-housing complex have the possibility to provide multiple roles to elderly such as mentoring, skill-sharing and care-giving to children and infants all of which can serve as support for their feeling of self-worth, meaning and purpose. Looking from a different perspective, this concept enhances mutual support, communal activities and active participation for all groups of people living in the cohousing complex (Anne Labit and Nathalie Dubost, 2016). Although a greater focus has been given to the elderly, this type of housing also has benefits for the other groups of fragile people and students living there. Regarding the fragile people that include people with disabilities and also people coming from troubled backgrounds lack the needed support and can obtain it from the elderly through the form of communication, (Reformat sentence about position of fragile groups of people). Also, on the other side of the spectrum we have the younger residents, namely the students, benefit from this social construction by having affordable housing adequate for their needs. Apart from the financial benefit, the students can also participate in the organization of communal events both for them and the rest of the residents by doing voluntary work and trough this gain inter-personal skills. As a concept this multi-generational co-housing complex does offer several solutions for multiple different groups of people with different backgrounds. A key component that must be respected by all inhabitants and that is mutual solidarity. From research, intergenerational solidarity cannot be imposed and can only develop on a voluntary basis (Labit and Dubost 2017) and because of this reason greater involvement from the residents of the compels is necessary

A SOLUTION FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE IN MODERN SOCIETIES

The first profile of people that we analyze in this multi-generational scenario are the elderly that are frequently affected with the issues of loneliness, isolation and boredom that we have discussed in the previous sections. To remedy this, our co-housing solution ensures a more connected community that brings together the elderly with the younger generation and the fragile group of people. Being able to communicate and interact with the other groups will aleviate some of the loneliness and boredom the elderly face and although these groups do not replace the role of specialists, they can give each other support in difficult moments (Di Pietro 2016). Reports have shown that elderly people prefer this concept of co-housing because it amplifies their feeling of control and independence while in the same time providing security and a community that promotes mutual care and support (Brenton, 2013) (Jarvis, 2015). Elderly who come to live in this type of housing are more prone to finding people that they can share interests with and have activities together as opposed to staying at their place the entire day. That is why our concept of multi-generational co-living connects these different groups of people: to make their lives more interesting and provide mutual benefits for all. According to recent studies, most people who move into extra care housing make new acquaintances and develop a social life (Netten 2011). Those with the highest support needs are those who feel social isolation, particularly where mobility and dementia are present, so living in retirement co-living home, naturally gives a sense of community and connecting with scheme neighbors. (Bulmer, 1986) argues that segregating elderly people into specialized housing for elderly, where they don’t have that much of connection with the outside- isolates them from neighbors of varying ages, hence exacerbating social isolation.

STUDENTS AND A SOLUTION FOR THEIR NEEDS

The second profile of people relevant to our project is the younger population of people with a main focus on students. In modern societies students are facing a growing issue of expensive and unattainable housing that has more often than not a really big impact on their day-to-day life. Moreover, young people often struggle

adapting to living alone and need some sort of guidance and advice regarding that transition. In Milan alone, there are over a quarter of a milion students, with 5% of them or around 14,000 being foreign students (AssoLombardia, 2018). This causes the housing prices in Milan to be very high due to very high demand. By providing cheap housing as well as options for shared co-living our project ensures that students don’t have a big financial burden and can benefit a lot from the experience and advice from the elderly that will be living there. In this context, although still too limited, experiments aimed at supporting and cooperating between individuals are also being launched in Italy, that create solutions focused on the rediscovery of values based on social collaboration and cooperation and on mutual support and encouragement (Costa, 2015). One such project is the Solidarity Neighborhood Project in Piacenza whose objective is to support elderly tenants and disabled people in public residential housing and at the same time to ensure cheap and affordable housing for university students (Roberto Bolici, Matteo Gambaro 2019). This project had its pilot in 2003 and is still functioning properly with very few minor modifications since its inception.

A STRATEGY FOR FRAGILE GROUPS OF PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETY

Immigrants and homeless people also fall into this profile and finding a place to live can be very difficult for these groups, due to the high costs of living. Living in a co-living complex would be beneficial for these groups not only because they would be able to afford a place to live, but also because they would be able to interact and socialize with others through various activities which can help their overall wellbeing. A recent paper by the UK Department of Health focuses on the main factors that can have a positive impact on an individual’s wellbeing (Department of Health 2014). Some of the factors mentioned are the environment, social inclusion, activity and relationships. When talking about the environment as a factor the paper mentions that homeless people have a 40-50% higher prevalence of mental health problems than the population as a whole. It also talks about how improvements in housing, or in the case of homeless people, having a house, can improve the mental wellbeing as well as change the person’s perceptions across a range of factors such as crime and safety. Increasing social contact with social activities and relationships are all mentioned to have a positive effect on levels of wellbeing not only for fragile people, but for any individual. This fragile profile of people can really help bring diversity to the co-housing complex and an interesting addition in the community. These people can act as a volunteering group, not only for helping the elderly, but also working in the community center and having the opportunity for housing while getting their back on their feet and working to attain a more stable life.

As a third profile of people, we are considering fragile people. The fragile people are not defined by age, gender or profession and people falling in this group are very common in the society. It can be an elderly with financial problems, a single mother figuring what is best for herself and her child, an adult from a troubled background with trauma or abuse, people with disabilities or immigrants struggling to find housing. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) the total number of estimated international migrants in the world in 2020 is around 281 million, which accounts for 3.6% of the world population in 2020. Following up on some statistics from the Homeless World Cup Organization, in Italy the number of homeless people tripled over the course of 5 years from 2011 to 2016, counting at 50724 homeless people in 2016. Similar increase in number of homeless people is shown in countries all over the world, from which we can conclude that there is a continuous increase in the number of homeless people all over the world. 28

SHARED SPACE

The notion of different street users sharing the same public road space is not new. However, the idea of encouraging the mixing of slower speed, smaller mass pedestrians or cyclists with a higher speed, larger mass vehicles is novel, particularly after the pinnacle of widespread automobile domination in the automobile era of the twentieth century and pervious objectives of separating vulnerable road users from vehicles. The road user integration idea can be traced to Buchanan’s environmental area philosophy and further developed in the Netherlands in the form of the residential shared space concept commonly referred to as “Woonerf” (Karndacharuk, Wilson, & Dunn, 2013). The shared space concept in literature (Biddulph, 2010, 2012a) mainly falls within the disciplines of urban design and planning that deals with the uses and appearances of urban public space. The distinctiveness of a shared space in comparison to typical urban public spaces is that it embraces the design and management of vehicular activities with relatively low operating speeds, and socially integrates various aspects of space users within the road transport system. Nevertheless, such space is typically defined as ‘road’ to ensure the public have the basic right of travelling from one place to another.

WOONERF CONCEPT The concept of the woonerf was developed in the late 1960s in the city of Delft, Netherlands (Collarete, 2013). Residents of a neighborhood were commonly upset with cut-through traffic speeding through their neighborhood, making it unsafe and a solution was needed to reduce the speed of the vehicles not by implementing rules and regulations, but rather by completely redesigning the streets. The concept views the street as a social space, rather than just a channel for vehicular mobility and was first officially embodied in the form of a residential shared street in the Netherlands with the following typical design and operational characteristics:

•

Pedestrians have priority to use the full width of the road while drivers are urged not to drive faster than walking speeds.

•

There is little demarcation between carriageway and footpath.

•

The entire width is often constructed in a continuous surface with special pavers 31

•

Through vehicular traffic is discouraged. Vehicle speeds and flows are restricted by street design (e.g. horizontal curves and the location of bollards and parking spaces)

•

There are streetscape elements to encourage users to stay within the space. .

•

The access points to the residential shared street area are clearly marked.

SITE ANALYSIS

Following the introductory framework, the following section of the work presented is the many information and themes that emerged from the analysis and research, together with the case studies which are discussed. Central to the development of the thesis, this part has a role to head towards a general solution for the main issues before the development of the project. To evaluate the validity of a good design in a big and important neighborhood in the central part of Milan we must first be aware how the city and the neighborhood affect the selected location and vice versa, i.e. how our location with the introduction of the changes that our designs will bring will affect the city and the neighborhood. The output gathered from the analysis dictates the projects design process, as well as the complete urban design that emerges from the previous research.

Figure 4. Site location Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 5. Aerial view of the location Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 6. Street entrance from the hospital – west side of the location

Figure 7. East entrance to the location

Source: Authors’ photograph

Figure 8. View from east entrance

Figure 9. View to Via Manfredo Fanti

Figure 10. View from Via Della Commenda

Source: Authors’ photograph

Figure 11. View from Via della Commenda to the location Source: Authors’ photograph

Figure 12. View to Via Alfonso Lamarmora Source: Authors’ photograph

SITE SELECTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA

As the first step in starting the thesis project, we needed to make a site selection. The research was focused on finding a place that can offer a number of characteristics for the project we wanted to develop. The site that was our final choice is located in the central part of Milan, inside the Guastalla neighborhood. It is spanning across an area of 23.000 square meters. It offered an abundance of greenery, well designed public transport connections that is connecting the site with different parts of the city, and bike paths were some among the many factors that led to our choice for this area.

in the Middle Ages (12th Century), after the destruction of the city by Frederick I Barbarossa. Finally, the third set of walls are the “Spanish Walls” built by the Spanish rulers (16th Century). While very little remains of these walls, their structure is clearly reflected in the urbanistic layout of the city. Our site is located between the second and the third ring which brings a lot of advantages considering its connections to the dense urban part and sparser rural parts outside the city. The reason for this is the good public transport which we will analyze in more detail in the following section.

Figure 13. Site characteristics

Figure 14. Analysis of historical rings and connections

Source: Authors’ graphic

The importance of the fortified city of Milan through the ages is attributed to its central position on the biggest plain in all of Italy. The relative flatness and its proximity to major rivers has led to a very natural growth of the city. The 13th century poet and writer from Lombardia: Bonvesin da la Riva, remarked on the circular shape that the city had developed: “This admirable roundness is a sign of perfection” (De magnalibus urbis Mediolani, 1288).

As can be seen on the map, there are train lines going outside of the urban zone which acts as a bridge between the dense urban zones and the less populated rural parts on its outskirts. Around the location there are a few stations to access these connections. This is a big advantage that the site has to offer because a main idea we had when developing the project was that it will not only have the ability to connect the residents and the people from the adjacent neighborhoods but also to attract people from the outside to visit and strengthen the community. Since the project was planned to be open for the public from the very beginning, it was very important to have this option of inviting outside people to pass through the area.

Today there are three circular rings of road that surround the city and they are closely related to the three historical circular wall rings of Milan. The first wall ring commonly referred to as the “Roman Walls” which was constructed during the Republican and the Imperial era. It wraps around the main city center having Duomo and Castello Sforzesco. The second ring is composed of the “Medival Walls” 38

Another central connection that played a big role in choosing the location was the street Corso di Porta Romana starting from Duomo, the main landmark and 39

the city center, which to the last ring, connecting all of the rings and reaching the outer parts of the city. The street is located on the south side of our site and is within walking distance, taking no more than few minutes to reach which makes it easier to target the tourists that are passing through it every day trying to get to the city center. An analysis that gives a good visual explanation of the level of connectivity in this area of the city is the one shown in the following figure. It represents as a contrast the built parts that are opposing the void, clearly distinguishing the buildings from the streets.

URBAN CONTEXT

While we were doing the analysis, we found a very interesting concept for the purposes of transforming the neighborhood: the New York Regional Plan by Clarence Perry. He created one of the first clear articulations of the neighborhood concept in the United States in the early 1920’s. He conceived the neighborhood unit as a comprehensive physical planning tool, to be utilized for designing self-contained residential neighborhoods which promoted a community centric lifestyle. A similar project that that is in a sense connected with Perry’s plan is the Garden City movement in one of the most remarkable urban planning methods in the United Kingdom initiated by Ebenezer Howard in 1898. Howard’s intention behind the Garden City movement was to combine the benefits of the countryside environment and the city environment while avoiding the disadvantages of both. An interesting theme can be identified in the spatial organization that Howard defines through the scheme of the “neighborhood unit idea”, an essential unit of the city intended for a relatively small local community in which the services of daily interest of the inhabitants are fomented within walking distance of all the hoses in the area.

Figure 15. Building blocks and street network Source: Authors’ graphic

Clarence Perry identifies the neighborhood unit as the scale on which one must intervene to design the city, creating opportunities for meeting and social interaction trough facilities for collective use. He focuses on the innovative idea that attention should be paid to repeated ordinary practices that people perform in their day-to-day routines to satisfy their needs. Perry distinguishes two orders of practices: those on the metropolitan scale, where the people move away from the place of their residence to work, and those on the local scale where people move near their homes. The latter are the ones that shape the idea of a neighborhood unit, located within a radius of 800 m of distance between the residences and the services concentrated in the commercial establishments.

FUNCTIONALITY

As part of the functionality, firstly we were mapping the most important points around the location which included: the Policlinico di Milano, the University of Milan and the green areas.

The polyclinical campus is one of the most crucial nodes around the area. As the elderly housing will be situated near it, it will be really good to have an emergency room or medical staff close by to be able to provide fast medical assistance which is crucial with elderly people. The university of Milan’s student campus is an area that is full of students which usually brings with itself a very dynamic environment with a lot of movement which provides good atmosphere and even crowdedness in the area. The green areas around our site provide a place to exercise, rest or bring kids to play in the playground. The park that is connected to our area can be used by all of the residents, especially the elderly due to its proximity. Also, around the location there are many small markets, coffeeshops, restaurants and places for take-away food making the area filled with different activities that the residents can choose from. According to Clarence Perry, the main purposes of the neighborhood units are to make the people socialize with one another, to enable the inhabitants to share the public amenities and recreational facilities, to support a safe and healthy environment within the neighborhood and to determine the communities’ prospects for the future. The research that we did was mostly what is around the location in 400 and 800m radius, which for the residents of the area it will be 5 to 15 minutes walking.

400 Meter Radius Church Restaurants/Coffeeshops

<10m <40m

Supermarket

550m

Post Office

450m

Hospital

65m

Student Dormitory

650m

Figure 16. Analysis of main functions in the area

Parks

60m

Porta Romana

570m

Source: Authors’ graphic

Metro Station

690m

Swimming Pool

720m

Duomo di Milano

800m

Emergency Room

400m

Tram/Bus Stations

50m

Hairdresser

800 Meter Radius

170m

Finally, similar to the topic discussed above, green spaces are provided proximity to obviate the difficult accessibility to urban parks that cannot be reached on a daily basis. According to Clarence Perry, the extension should be more than a maximum radius of 800 m of distance between the residences and the desired goal which in this case is the park. In times like this, which emerged with particular force in the recent period of the lockdown during the COVID 19 pandemic, we should be aware of the importance of having green areas around our location that can be accessible for the residences. 43

LANDMARKS

GREEN AREAS

The main historical and touristic landmarks around our location are giving us the opportunity to get more visitors and not be limited to the residents living in and around the area. The main landmarks that are highlighted in the figure are Porta Romana, Velasca Tower, Rotonda della Besana, Porta Vittoria, Duomo di Milano, Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II and Palazzo Reale Romano. As we can see, the proximity of our site to the city center and this landmarks in general allows us to make it a point of frequent flow of people.

The greenery around our location is an important factor for the residents in the project, even though the location itself will provide green spaces that will be open for the public. After our analysis we saw that there is a main park around the location: Giardini della Guastalla and many small green areas as well. In addition, there are green paths in the city creating a green network to connect different parts of the city to the main green agricultural lands in the southern part of Milan.

Figure 17. Analysis of landmarks

Figure 18. Analysis of greenery

Source: Authors’ graphic

CONNECTIONS AND MOBILITY

Unsustainable mobility is a major challenge in some parts of the cities. Urban design can help in mitigating environmental problems caused by increased automobile travel and urban sprawl by creating urban forms that encourage walking and increase the use of public transportation. Designing and building walkable, dense, and diverse areas, as well as concentrating urban growth around transit stops to facilitate increased use of public transportation, is critical in a neighborhood. Compact developments surrounding transit stops encourage a fundamental change from vehicles to walking and public transit, and vice versa, creating a virtuous cycle of environmentally friendly mobility (Cervero & Sullivan, 2011).

In the Gustalla neighborhood there are many public transport lines-bus tram stations and metro stations. We have Metro station Crocetta in 150m from the site and many tram and bus lines at a 2-minute walk from the site. It was important for us to have the station near the location from around it, since some of the residents are not driving, and older people are less likely to drive as well, favoring public transport and walking.

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

The building site may be chosen for its proximity to bus lines or bike lanes in the near vicinity of the location. For most people, however, vehicles are an essential part of their lives, and access to highways and trucking routes need to be a major consideration. The analysis for the traffic around the site was a basic requirement for planning, infrastructure development and mobility management. From the 3 different levels of traffic flows: high, medium and low, Corso Di Porta Romana has the highest traffic flow coming from the city center, acting as a connection from Duomo to the rings of the city. The main street also contains Metro station Crocetta and few other public transport lanes. Additionally, Via Francesco Sforza, the street on the north-west side of our location has the medium traffic flows. It’s a two-way street with width of 9 meters and an additional public transport lane. The nearest street around our location is Via della Commenda which is a secondary street with 7 meters width, and it has a low traffic flow. Our site is accessible for the public only from the east side (via della Commenda),and the west side, the street next to the hospital is closed due to reconstruction. •

Via Francesco Sforza (9m width)

•

Via della Commenda (7m width)

•

Via Manfredo Fanti (7m width)

•

Secondary street next to the hospital (9m width)

•

Corso di Porta Romana (21m width) - 6 lanes

Figure 19. Connections and mobility diagram Source: Authors’ graphic

After the analysis we came to a conclusion that we should provide the residents another option for getting from Point A to point B which will be not only for pedestrians but also for vehicles and bikes. We propose an urban shared street, which will not act as a faster solution for the vehicles because they will need to drive slow there, but will provide another option to get from one point of the city to the other.

Figure 20. Street traffic flows Source: Authors’ graphic

However, the urban shared space will benefit the pedestrians, because it will shorten the walking distance and they will reach their desired destination faster.

BIKE PATHS

In order to make a sustainable urban tissue we need to push towards a cleaner, healthier, and more efficient mode of transportation. This concept of ‘healthy’ urban environment is directly connected with a promotion of cycling and walking. Around the area, there are not many streets designed for bicycle users. However, The PGT map of Milan shows the network will be further connected. Bike sharing stations are abundant around parks and public buildings like university or offices and even on streets without bike lanes. Using the existing paths and connecting them through the site, will expand the network.

Figure 21. Existing and proposed paths from east to west side of the location Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 22. Bike paths Source: Authors’ graphic

PROJECT

Following the thorough research and analysis and the selection of the main themes that arose therein, we arrive to the final phase where we reimagine the site in the Gustalla neighborhood. This section methodologically follows the order that starts from the general towards the particular; from the urban scale towards the architectural. The themes defined in the previous sections appear in a sequence following the design logic, and a new image for the site is constructed using the concepts that emerged during the analysis. The process defined in this section is the conclusion that covers the proposed solutions following all the research carried out, creating a transformation of the site that encapsulates the context of the themes in that research. This final section narrates the entire project, starting from the main concept, the construction of the strategy and proposal that takes into account both the urban and anthropoid aspects to finally obtain the finished project.

CASE STUDIES

Co-Residence: Habiter en Grand space

Gifu Kitagata Apartment Building

Studio: STAR MONU/BOARD

Studio: SANAA

Location: Paris, France

Location: Gifu, Japan

Concept design: 2013

Design: 1998

The concept is realized by ŞTAR architecture studio (strategies + architecture and MONU/BOARD) as the first part of an ongoing research. Co-Residence applies the contemporary spirit of ‘sharing’ that is being more adopted in our culture in the form of co-working, bicycle sharing systems, to co-living spaces. A “Co-Residence’ is actually an apartment, of which some of the basic elements are shared by two or more ‘private units’. We chose this project as it has really similar ideas as ours, with already designed modules, forming a bigger unit- or a building.

The project of this social housing structure, built on the outskirts of the city of Gifu, is part of the master plan conceived and developed by Arata Isozaki. The courtyard created by the buildings creates a large public space in the center which includes parking lots and other ancillary services to the residence. The slenderness of the building, defined by the basic module of the “room” (5.8 m deep) and by the two distribution bands (internal and external), favors the transversal air exchange through the openings in the lodgings and in the loggias that “pierce” the building from side to side. The solution favors cooling in the summer and solar gain in the winter. An interesting element is the separate metal staircase that characterizes the main façade and from which the long galleries are accessed.

Figure 23. Habiter en Grand space Source: STAR strategies + architecture & BOARD (2013) BOARD Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands,

Figure 24. Gifu Kitagata Apartment Building

89-96.

Source: https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/edificio-de-apartamentos-gifu-kitagata-gifu-3

Little Manhattan

Coop Housing

Studio: Nine Dots

Studios: BARarchitekten, Carpaneto Architekten, Fatkoehl Architekten

Location: Cornelis Lelylaan, Amsterdam, NL

Location: Berlin, Germany

Design-Completion: 2014-2017

Design: 2013

The strategy activates the site and opens it up at three scales: an urban scale, the building scale and the human scale. The building is composed of six volumes that together form an iconic urban ensemble on a large scale but is also legible at a small scale. Three incisions reduce the scale of the building and open it to the neighborhood, and create new gateways into the complex.

The mission of the project is to harness its location’s unique potential to create a socially just, economically stable, and environmentally responsible urban building block. The reason why we chose this project as a reference was that it’s very opened to the neighborhood and the city, but in the same time it shows the differentiation between private, communal and public spaces. The building design and the construction is modular, and they are using units which are forming the shape and the volume. Overall, according to us it has some good characteristics which helped us to define our idea.

Figure 26. Coop Housing Plan Figure 25. Little Manhattan

Source: https://www.archdaily.com/587590/coop-housing-project-at-the-river-spreefeld-carpaneto-

Source: https://studioninedots.nl/project/little-manhattan/

architekten-fatkoehl-architekten-bararchitekten

Urban shared space - Exhibition Road

New Road

Studios: Dixon Jones

Architect: Gehl Architects

Location: South Kensington, London, UK

Location: Brighton, UK

Design: 2012

Completed: 2007

In the last decade, a good number of streets have been redesigned adopting shared space schemes in over twenty cities across the UK. Exhibition road, however, is the most disseminated, popular and recognized case among all. This has been an important reason for selecting this case study, since it makes it more accessible and understandable to the urban design community. The main scheme for the road and surrounding streets is giving pedestrians greater priority whilst still allow some vehicular traffic at a reduced speed.

The project has transformed this part of Brighton City Centre, making a socially and environmentally sustainable public realm which is contributing to the city’s thriving economy. It has cemented itself as one of Brighton’s most important public places. Since its opening, traffic levels in the street have dropped by 93%, whilst cycling and pedestrian numbers have risen by 22% and 162% respectively.

Figure 27. Exhibition Road

Figure 28. Shared space - New Road

Source: https://www.publicspace.org/works/-/project/g069-exhibition-road

Source: https://gehlpeople.com/projects/new-road-brighton-uk/

Superkilen Park

MAIN CONCEPT

Architects: Bjarke Ingels Group, Superflex; Topotek 1 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Completed: 2021 In the center of Copenhagen, in the middle of all the greyness of the city, there is a big urban park with a beautiful eye-catching design. The design of this green park features curvy lines and there is a sports field in the middle of the park which provides a more topographical and artificial way to play with nature. It has different urban furniture elements like benches, sculptures, bins and traffic lights. The park is long and is located between multiple already existing buildings. The idea of the park was to change the design of the street connections, from straight streets to curvy lines, to reduce the fast traffic.

Considering the research and analysis that we carried out, the leading concept behind the design process of our project is that we wanted to develop a solution that encompasses multiple different problems: the isolation and loneliness of the elderly, the housing needs of the younger generation, the sense of alienation for fragile people, the lack of connectivity in the area both in terms of traffic and in terms of inter-personal connections. With our project, we implement many different concepts and methodologies ranging from co-housing to solve the primarily personal problems, to the use of shared space to promote modern traffic solutions that improve the residents quality of life. Elderly people in this society and especially in big cosmopolitan cities are facing increasing levels of isolation and loneliness while the younger population is struggling with feelings of anxiety and stress. To remedy this, we wanted to create a site that produces a community of acceptance and support for all people regardless of age, nationality and background, a community where anyone can find people that understands their struggles and help them.

Figure 30. Idea diagram Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 29. Red square - Superkilen Park Source: https://www.topotek1.de/openSpaces/superkilen-2/

STRATEGY AND PROPOSAL The solutions that we developed to solve many of the problems that both the people and the urban environment are facing are revolving around the two main concepts previously discussed: co-housing and shared spaces. We decided to connect the public part of our site to the urban context of the surroundings by proposing and designing an urban shared space as already seen and discussed in the case studies. Firstly, our location was only accessible from two points, one in the east through Via Della Commenda and one in the northwest through the street connecting the polyclinic Via Francesco Sforza. During our analysis one of these points was facing heavy construction and this point of access was virtually blocked, presenting itself as a chokepoint and reducing the flow of people in the location. The urban shared space which we are creating with the project is an organic place which is connecting the east and west side of the location, providing additional access points and fluid movement for both pedestrians and vehicles. The main idea is to keep the focus on the pedestrians but also create a route that bikes and vehicles can use as an alternative to the already existing paths. This shared space will not act as faster solution for the traffic but rather as a viable option to improve the fluidity of the neighborhood not just for its residents but also for the traffic in and around the site

Figure 31. Urban shared space and placement diagram Source: Authors’ graphic

To enforce the criteria established by the Woonerf Concept for shared spaces, we put different obstacles in the shared space like wooden benches, tree benches and in-built benches as well as trash cans, bike racks and street lights with the goal to slow down the vehicles and bikes that will pass through it. The urban furniture elements were carefully chosen, to be diverse and to be placed in every part of the projects’ location.

Figure 32. Urban furniture Source: Authors’ graphic

From the community center, the columns on the ground floor together with the thin walls which will be used for exhibition, are also acting as obstacles, and only pedestrians can walk through it. The urban shared space will also include different types of vegetation, like bushes, green areas with grass and trees, and single trees. The pavement of the urban shared space is concrete white pavers, with a variance that some parts are only the concrete tiles, while the others are the concrete paver with a grass in-between. The concrete pavers were chosen with an idea to slow the cars while moving though the street. The shared space will also benefit the pedestrians by reducing the walking distance if they need to go across the location without circling around it. This also creates an opportunity for non-resident pedestrians to increase the flow of people inside the location, which in turn will provide a more dynamic atmosphere in the inner circle of the site.

Figure 33. Urban shared space elements Source: Authors’ graphic

With this, we can start introducing the four different levels of privacy throughout the location. Each of them accomplishes different goals and is designed to provide a broader range of functionality to our location. Since our project revolves around the idea of co-housing, the need for many different spaces arose naturally as there isn’t a way to design a single space for all different profiles of people.

but which are inaccessible by outside visitors. These spaces can be seen by people passing through but cannot be reached. These spaces include gathering spaces inside the building, the roof gardens, co-working spaces, visiting rooms and shared balconies. Finally, the last type of spaces is the so called “private spaces” which encompass the spaces that can be used only by the residents and more importantly only by a designated number of residents. In some cases, they are reserved for a certain person while in other cases they are for a group of people living in the same unit. These spaces cannot be used or seen by an arbitrary person coming from the outside.

Figure 34. Definitions of different levels of privacy Source: Authors’ graphic

The “public spaces” which we hinted previously are connected to the urban context and are open and accessible for the residents, visitors, tourists and everyone that might find themselves in the near vicinity of our location. They are mainly designed for interaction and the cultivation of contacts between both residents among themselves and non-residents alike. The second type of places are the “semipublic spaces” which are open to the public and generally accessible by anyone, but are not completely integrated into the urban context. These are mainly used by nearby residents and include small gardens located on the sides of the project and open-air gathering spaces among others. There are also “semi-private spaces” that are used by different profiles of people which are residents of the complex 64

Figure 35. Privacy levels on the location Source: Authors’ graphic

An important thing that helps differentiate the public, semi-public, semiprivate and private spaces is the nature of the pavement. We are assigning different pavement materials of each of the spaces which propagates the level of privacy of each and gives a visual que for the residents to know what level of privacy they have. 65

Figure 36. Diagram of privacy Source: Authors’ graphic

The project design consists of two residential buildings on the north and south sides of the location. The residential buildings are designed with an internal patio - courtyard, positioned relative to the existing blocks around us. While designing, we tried to integrate it with the built environment around it, carefully considering the scale and heights of the neighboring buildings to finally reach the end result.

The way we developed the co-living concept is by creating different types of units designed for different profiles of people. Some of the units are providing living alone while some of them are creating a co-housing for 2 or 3 different profiles of people. However, even for the units that are designed for one profile, they are included in the co-housing, because of the spaces like gathering room or game rooms, and are appropriate for all the residents of one residential building. The idea behind the residential buildings was for them to serve as the basis for a co-living space, together with the shared spaces which are located on the first three floors of each building, occupying most of the buildings corners.

A1 Single module, two students unit A unit providing space for two students, with a shared bathroom and kitchen/ dining room. The bedroom is equipped with a bunk bed, located in the middle and providing an almost private space for studying, reading and resting. A2 Single module, single student unit The one module student unit is providing essential space for a young person. A bedroom with a separate kitchen and dining room, and a bathroom designated for that person only. The area is 30m2 and each unit has a private balcony. However, the one module units on the ground floor are, due to privacy reasons, left without a balcony, and the area of one unit is enlarged to 36m2. A3 Single module Elderly unit Figure 37. Sections through the area Source: Authors’ graphic

The one module elderly unit is mainly assigned for the older people which are independent and healthy, and don’t need any kind of help during the routine daily activities. A4 Single module, fragile profile unit For the fragile profile of people, there is a possibility for a single module unit, with an area off 30m2 (and 36m2 on the ground floor), with a private kitchen and bathroom.

Figure 38. Residential building diagram Source: Authors’ graphic

B1 Double module unit for disabled or an elderly couple The apartment is providing wider space suitable for a person in a wheelchair or an elderly couple. Bedroom with a private bathroom and an open space for living room, dining room and kitchen. Every unit of this type has a private balcony. The area is 70m2. B2 Double module unit for fragile family The unit consists of two bedrooms and one shared bathroom. It has a private terrace which is accessible from the both bedrooms. C1 Double module unit for elderly + student/ fragile The unit has an area of 70m2, two bedrooms and 2 private bathrooms. The balcony is accessible from both of the rooms. D1 Triple module unit for co-housing It can house all 3 profiles of people, or 2 of them mixed. The area is 43m2 + two balconies (every bedroom has an access to a balcony). It has 2 bathrooms, from which one is private and assigned only for the elderly.

Figure 39. Unit types Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 41. Interior view of unit type A1 Source: Authors’ graphic

The units in the residential buildings are located in such a way that every profile of people has a special place in it. The elderly and disabled are situated near the vertical communication- the elevators. The elderly are also mainly situated on the 2 parts of the building which are looking towards the urban shared space, to have better relation with the community and the people passing by- as it can be seen in the following diagram of the northern residential block- on the west and south side. Moreover, the students are located mainly on the other 2 sides of the building- north and east, since they are more out of the house during the day, and need more peace and quiet for studying. Also, on the upper floors the elderly and fragile are scattered on the floorplan for flexibility.

Figure 40. Unit types Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 42. Unit type placement Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 44. Semi-private gathering space Source: Authors’ graphic

Another instance in the building design, that is used as a shared space is the place in front of the elevators on the first, second, third and fourth floors. Some of them have greenery included, and some of them can be used as an open terrace for the residents, where they can meet and share their time together. All of these spaces, have a void next to the elevator, which serves as a placeholder for a vegetation: a tall Italian cypress tree that reaches the highest floor. This represents the importance of the green points in our location, as well as helping stress the verticality of the communication: the elevators. Figure 43. Unit type placement Source: Authors’ graphic

Moreover, each residential building provides the residents semi-private spaces, which are open for them- the activity units. All the residents can use the coworking spaces, gym, gathering spaces, game room, swimming pool (for recreation or therapy) and the cinema room. Also, the residential buildings are offering semi private green balconies on second and third floor, and small courtyards in the patio, that can up bring the atmosphere in the area.

Figure 45. Communal space next to elevators Source: Authors’ graphic

The courtyards of the residential blocks are in a way defining 4 smaller parts, separated with greenery; grass and trees. Each part has different activities and sitting spaces, and it can be used by the residents of the building. The stairs of each part of the residential building are starting from a specially designated place within the courtyard. The greenery also helped us to define the path and the movement of the people, for example the vegetation under the stairs is preventing people walking under them, and hurting themselves.

Figure 46. Courtyard design Source: Authors’ graphic

Through the analysis we did we were influenced to create a shared space as it seems to enrich the urban design in our site, but we wanted to not only provide a solution for the current problems but also leave a footprint in the neighborhood of Guastalla and influence new positive changes after the project is built. That is why we wanted to create something that is currently not available in the neighborhood, to enrich it with the introduction of a community center. The community center will contribute to the neighborhood of Guastalla by opening up more space in which different activities such as exhibitions and workshops can take place. Its ground floor will be open so it doesn’t disrupt the flow of people and blurs the line between what is the existing infrastructure now and the newly designed site. The space at the ground floor will be used as an open-air gallery with thin walls which will act as an obstacle in the context of the shared space and give it an organic shape which will enable a continuous but not straight fluid movement. The three buildings

of the community center are situated on both the east and west entrances into the area and are open for the public, inviting non-residents to explore and satisfy their curiosity about the nature of the space. Together with the shared space, the community center is a part of what we define a “public space” of our project.

Figure 47. Community center diagram Source: Authors’ graphic

SELECTION OF PROFILES FOR CO-LIVING Another important aspect that was heavily considered during the development of the project was the profiles of the people that are going to be residents in the complex. During our research we invested a lot of time thinking of ways we can develop a co-living project that spans multiple generations, catering to the needs of every different profile of people within. This is how we created an environment that will be able to house three different profiles of people: the elderly, and an important profile of people with social problems that we define as fragile people. The most attention of all three profiles has been given to the elderly. For them we wanted to create a place in the city center where they would love to spend the remaining years of their lives, a place with a live atmosphere and many activities in which they can participate in. As Italy is the second country in the world considering the populations age, we wanted to provide not just an ordinary elderly housing complex that might not be a good fit, but rather to create a community which will attract them and enrich their lives with new activities and friends of all ages, not just their generation.

Milan also is a very large hub for domestic and international students, inviting over a quarter of a million students each year and finding suitable housing inside the city is one of the biggest problems that they are facing. The co-housing concept will try to remedy this issue by providing affordable housing units which they can optionally share with other students to even further reduce their monthly expenditures. The proximity of our site to the University of Milan and other educational institutions will allow the students to have a very advantageous position, located in the center of the city where they can live and study. The last profile of people that we considered are the fragile people whose profile is age and gender neutral mainly because anyone can fall into this category during their life in one way or another. This profile encompasses many different types of people including but not limited to people with disabilities, homeless people, people that aren’t financially stable, immigrants, and single parents among others. What we hope to achieve is to provide this profile of people a place to live and blend in with the community by participating in the community center and helping the elderly. We view this intergenerational mix of different profiles as an opportunity for every member of the community to help the rest and affect them in a positive way. This will largely be propagated through the community center where every person will be able to play a different role, for example students and fragile people can help the elderly with everyday physical tasks as well as promoting a more active daily routine through various activities. All of the groups will be able to exchange valuable skills and wisdom between each other through the forms of workshops where different crafts will be shared. The leading principle of the community center will be to strengthen the bonds between the members of the community and in a way providing a safety net that they can use when they are facing some difficulties. With this, the general atmosphere in the site will be more positive and acceptable for many different characters of people and hopefully it will bring a new dimension to the area in and around the neighborhood of Guastalla.

TECHNICAL DRAWINGS

The top view plan of the location is showing the built area, the infrastructure and the voids in the neighborhood. The already existing area is a composition of buildings with a similar scale but their design consists of different forms and shapes which in turn are defining the open spaces and the minor green areas. Similar to the buildings in and around our site, our residential buildings include an inside patio. The closest buildings when looking at the north and the south sides both include a patio in the middle which enabled us to connect them with our project. On the top view-roof top plan we can clearly see the open spaces, the property lines and the fenced parts around the building which are forming the pedestrian paths and the connections in the area. While designing our project, we tried to construct something that will live a footprint on the area, simultaneously bringing a new aspect to the neighborhood and avoiding the possibility of acting like a border in the already existing area. We tried to blur the lines of the newly built space by presenting an urban shared space that is open for the public, tempting the residents, tourists and travelers to visit the place.

Urban Sections

We have several wide sections spanning through the area. Three of them are following a north to south direction and the other three are in the east to west direction. The urban sections of the location were important to investigate mainly because of their topography and how they correspond to the topography of our site which is mostly flat. It also helped us to understand the scale and height of the buildings around the location, their density and the existence of voids . Moreover, this analysis helped us navigate the development of our project during the initial design phase. As already mentioned, we tried to blur the lines between the new and the already existing with a non-invasive design that at the same time enriches the functions of the location. With this, the atmosphere is more inviting, mainly thanks to the open shared space which is allowing fluid movement and creates a new connection through the neighborhood.

The urban shared space in the middle of our location is connecting the east street Via Della Commenda and the west street of the location Via Francesco Sforza with the help of the secondary street which is passing by nearby Polyclinic. This street is already existing but we connected it with our project in a way that is acting as a transitional space when coming from Via Sforza, with elements that are acting as obstacles and narrowing down the street below its original width.

Figure 48. Topography urban sections Source: Authors’ graphic

The roof plan of the location is showing the built area, the infrastructure and the voids in the neighborhood. The already existing area is a composition of buildings with a similar scale but their design consists of different forms and shapes which in turn are defining the open spaces and the minor green areas. Similar to the buildings in and around our site, our residential buildings include an inside patio. The closest buildings when looking at the north and the south sides both include a patio in the middle which enabled us to connect them with our project. On the roof plan we can clearly see the open spaces, the property lines and the fenced parts around the building which are forming the pedestrian paths and the connections in the area. While designing our project, we tried to construct something that will live a footprint on the area, simultaneously bringing a new aspect to the neighborhood and avoiding the possibility of acting like a border in the already existing area. We tried to blur the lines of the newly built space by presenting an urban shared space that is open for the public, tempting the residents, tourists and travelers to visit the place. The urban shared space in the middle of our location is connecting the east street Via Della Commenda and the west street of the location Via Francesco Sforza with the help of the secondary street which is passing by nearby Polyclinic. This street is already existing but we connected it with our project in a way that is acting as a transitional space when coming from Via Sforza, with elements that are acting as obstacles and narrowing down the street below its original width.

Figure 49. Roof plan Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 50. Masterplan Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 51. Zoomed plan Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 52. Groundfloor plan Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 53. First-floor plan Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 54. Second-floor plan Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 55. Third-floor plan Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 56. Forth-floor plan Source: Authors’ graphic

Figure 57. Urban sections Source: Authors’ graphic

100

101

Figure 58. Long sections Source: Authors’ graphic

102

103

Figure 59. North section Source: Authors’ graphic

104

105

Figure 60. South section Source: Authors’ graphic

106

107

Figure 61. East section Source: Authors’ graphic

108

109

Figure 62. West section Source: Authors’ graphic

110

111

Figure 63. Facades Source: Authors’ graphic

112

113

Figure 64. West facade of the southern residential building Source: Authors’ graphic

114

115

Figure 65. Planter detail Source: Authors’ graphic

116

117

Figure 66. Community center public space Source: Authors’ graphic

118

119

Figure 67. View of the urban shared space and semi-private spaces Source: Authors’ graphic

120

121

CONCLUSION

The overall aim of this research was to advance the understanding of buildings and the urban shared spaces integrated in the heart of Milan, to identify how these integrations within the design can enhance and enrich the area and to determine how to create a tightly connected co-living community that reimagines the structure and dynamics that govern urban neighborhoods. We envision this co-living complex as the norm in the future, where neighborhoods would offer much more to its residents besides housing and various services. They would offer a sense of belonging to a community that is rich with inter-personal relationships that are nurtured through frequent communication and activities. Also, this community will be open to many different profiles of people and not just the ones discussed here.

122

123

REFERENCES OF IMAGES

Figure 1. Leading causes of death, both sexes, 1998, low and middle-income countries by age Figure 2. Leading causes of burden of disease, both sexes, 1998, low and middleincome countries by age Figure 3. Maintaining functional capacity over the life course Figure 4. Site location Figure 5. Aerial view of the location Figure 6. Street entrance from the hospital – west side of the location Figure 7. East entrance to the location Figure 8. View from east entrance Figure 9. View to Via Manfredo Fanti Figure 10. View from Via Della Commenda Figure 11. View from Via della Commenda to the location Figure 12. View to Via Alfonso Lamarmora Figure 13. Site characteristics Figure 14. Analysis of historical rings and connections Figure 15. Building blocks and street network Figure 16. Analysis of main functions in the area Figure 17. Analysis of landmarks Figure 18. Analysis of greenery Figure 19. Connections and mobility diagram Figure 20. Street traffic flows Figure 21. Existing and proposed paths from east to west side of the location Figure 22. Bike paths 124

125

Figure 23. Habiter en Grand space

Figure 46. Courtyard design

Figure 24. Gifu Kitagata Apartment Building

Figure 47. Community center diagram

Figure 25. Little Manhattan

Figure 48. Topography urban sections

Figure 26. Coop Housing Plan

Figure 49. Roof plan

Figure 27. Exhibition Road

Figure 50. Masterplan

Figure 28. Shared space - New Road

Figure 51. Zoomed plan

Figure 29. Red square - Superkilen Park

Figure 52. Groundfloor plan

Figure 30. Idea diagram

Figure 53. First-floor plan

Figure 31. Urban shared space and placement diagram

Figure 54. Second-floor plan

Figure 32. Urban furniture

Figure 55. Third-floor plan

Figure 33. Urban shared space elements

Figure 56. Fourth-floor plan

Figure 34. Definitions of different levels of privacy

Figure 57. Urban sections

Figure 35. Privacy levels on the location

Figure 58. Long sections

Figure 36. Diagram of privacy

Figure 59. North section

Figure 37. Sections through the area

Figure 60. South section

Figure 38. Residential building diagram

Figure 61. East section

Figure 39. Unit types

Figure 62. West section

Figure 40. Unit types

Figure 63. Facades

Figure 41. Interior view of unit type A1

Figure 64. West facade of the southern residential building

Figure 42. Unit type placement

Figure 65. Planter detail

Figure 43. Unit type placement

Figure 66. Community center public space

Figure 44. Semi-private gathering space

Figure 67. View of the urban shared space and semi-private spaces

Figure 45. Communal space next to elevators 126

127

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Theo van Tilburg, Betty Havens, Jenny de Jong Gierveld (2004) Loneliness among Older Adults in the Netherlands, Italy, and Canada: A Multifaceted Comparison Antonella Sarlo, Francesco Bagnato and Flavia Martinelli (2019) Ageing in place and the built environment. Implications for the quality of life and the risks of isolation of frail older people Maria Brenton January (2013) Senior cohousing communities – an alternative approach for the UK Anne Labit and Nathalie Dubost (2017) Housing and ageing in France and Germany: the intergenerational solution Netton, A., Darton, R., Baumker, T. & Callaghan, L. (2011) Improving housing with care choices for older people: an evaluation of extra care housing, PSSRU/ Housing LIN Cristiana Di Pietro (2016) Ageing and Senior Cohousing: the Capability Approach Perspective Imogen Blood and Jenny Pannel (2012) Building Mutual Support and Social Capital in Retirement Communities Housing LIN Viewpoint 23 (www.housinglin.org.uk/_library/Resources/Housing/Support_materials/ Viewpoints/Viewpoint_23_Mutual_Support.pdf) Ann Netten (2011) The characteristics of residents in extra care housing and care homes in England, 87-96. Bulmer, M. (1986) Neighbours: The work of Philip Abrams, Cambridge University Press Jayakody R R J C, Keraminiyage K, Alston M and Dias N (2018) Design Factors For a Successful Shared Space Street (SSS) Design Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 22 278– 89. Karndacharuk A, Wilson D J and Dunn R (2014) A Review of the Evolution of Shared (Street) Space Concepts in Urban Environments Transp. Rev. 34, 190–220. ` Ben Hamilton -Baillie (2008) Shared Space: Reconciling People, Places and Traffic.

128

129

Kalache, Alexandre & Kickbusch, Ilona (1997) A global strategy for healthy ageing. World Health, 50 (4), 4 - 5. World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: a policy framework. World Health Organization. Davey, J.A., De Joux, V., Nana, G., Arcus, M. (2004) Accommodation options for older people in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Christchurch, Centre for Housing Research. Wiles, J. (2005), Home as a new site of care provision and consumption, in Andrews, G. J. & Philips, D. R. (eds.), Ageing and Place: Perspectives, Policy, Practice, London, Routledge, pp. 79-97. Handler, S. (2015) An alternative age-friendly handbook, Manchester, University of Manchester Library. Lawton, M. P., Nahemow, L. (1973) Ecology and the aging process, in Eisdorfer, C., Lawton, M.P. (eds) The psychology of adult development and aging, Washington DC, American Psychological Association, pp. 619-674. Evans, G. W., Kantrowitz, E., Eshelman, P. (2002) Housing quality and psychological well-being among the elderly population, in The Journals of Gerontology, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(4), pp. 381-383. Department of Health (2014) A compendium of factsheets: wellbeing across the lifecourse: what works to improve wellbeing?

Horner, B and Boldy, DP (2008) The benefit and burden of ‘ageing-in-place’ in an aged care community. Australian Health Review: A Publication of the Australian Hospital Association 32, 356–365. Mark Bryan and Rebekah Matheny (2021) Co-Living - Planning for Organic Growth and Evolving Expectations: Part 1 - Generations on the Move and their Evolving Vision of Future Living Livia Sz. Oláh, 2015: Changing families in the European Union: trends and policy implications Rishi S. Patel, 2019: Loneliness: the present and the future Susan Davidson and Phil Rossall, 2015: Evidence Review: Loneliness in Later Life Kjerstin Larsson, Veronika Wallroth & Agneta Schröder (2019): “You Never Get Used to Loneliness” Antonella Sarlo, Francesco Bagnato and Flavia Martinelli (2019): Ageing in place and the built environment. Implications for the quality of life and the risks of isolation of frail older people Anne Labit and Nathalie Dubost (2016): Housing and ageing in France and Germany: the intergenerational solution Maria Brenton (2013): Senior cohousing communities – an alternative approach for the UK?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2019) Healthy Places Terminology. Available at (https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm.)

Helen Jarvis (2015): Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: evidence from the UK, USA and Australia

World Health Organization (2015) World Report on Ageing and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Roberto Bolici, Matteo Gambaro (2019): Neighborhood Solidarity Project. Experience of intergenerational student cohabitation

Chen, C-K, Shie, A-J, Wang, K-M and Yu, C-H (2015) An ageing-in-place service innovation model by using TRIZ methodology. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 25, 166–182

Giuliana Costa (2019): Intergenerational homesharing programmes. A piece of the ‘ageing in place’ puzzle? Assolombardia, Report (2018): L’internazionalizzazione degli atenei di Milano e della Lombardia

130

131

Juli Carrere, Alexia Reyes (2020): The effects of cohousing model on people’s health and wellbeing: a scoping review Glass AP. Lessons learned from a new elder cohousing community; 2013. Glass AP. Resident-managed elder intentional neighborhoods: do they promote social resources for older adults? J Gerontol Soc Work; 2016 Robert Cervero, Cathleen Sullivan (2011): Green TODs - Marrying transit-oriented development and green urbanism Karndacharuk, A., Wilson, D., & Dunn, R. (2013). Evaluating shared spaces: Methodological framework and performance index. Road and Transport Research, 22(2), 52–61. Biddulph, M. (2010). Evaluating the English home zone initiatives. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 199–218. Biddulph, M. (2012a). Radical streets? The impact of innovative street designs on liveability and activity in residential areas. Urban Design International, 17(3), 178– 205. Collarete, N. (2013). The Woonerf Concept “Rethinking a Residential Street in Somerville”

132