dynamic DWELLING.
The active potential of flexible housing in an evolving urban condition. BRENDA MARGOLIS , MArch candidate
•
2011-2012
for horei.
dynamic DWELLING.
The active potential of flexible housing in an evolving urban condition.
BRENDA MARGOLIS , MArch candidate • 2011-2012 PHILLIP CROSBY, advisor • TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Tyler School of Art
[0.1]
i
Table of Contents PART 1 • Thesis Position 01 • Introduction: flexibility in a changing cultural landscape 02 • Flexibility vs. Form 03 • Significance of the House 05 • Flexible Housing: user, program, site 07 • Selected Case Studies • User generated housing: Quinta Monroy by Alejandro Aravena, 2003. • Demountable/ Pre-fab: Cellophane House, Kieren Timberlake Architects, 2008 • Polyvalent Housing: Diagoon Houses by Herman Hertzberger, 1971 • Case study analysis
01
PART 2 • Thesis Proposal 11 • Introduction: urban polyvalent housing in 3 acts 13 • SITE: Brewerytown, Philadelphia, PA 23 • USER + PROGRAM: proposed scenarios 25 • Building Technologies
11
PART 3 • Design • Introduction: dynamic DWELLING in 3 acts 27 29 • Ruleset: decision matrix 31 • dynamic DWELLING in 3 acts: urban generation 33 • dynamic DWELLING in 3 acts: building case study 35 • Critical analysis: reflections
27
REFERENCES 36 ii • table of contents
Abstract
In an increasingly fluid cultural landscape, flexibility in architecture is essential for the design of affordable and sustainable buildings as they mitigate rapidly evolving users and program, as well as changing site conditions. The thesis situates itself in the shifting post-industrial context of Philadelphia, proposing a polyvalent housing solution within this context. The generation of the polyvalent house emerges from a series of scenarios developed to accommodate a wide range of user and program types, and also to instigate architectural growth on an urban scale. The intentional insertion of defined program into the existing site will serve to instigate further growth to ultimately fill in a volatile but much-loved neighborhood. This strategy will reinforce the influence of the house by asserting that a flexible house can provoke change within its urban setting through its insistence on program flexibility; encompassing both public and private realms. Tectonically, the architecture takes advantage of current fabrication technologies using a system that allows dismantlement and re-use of elements. The building system defined, the program and user scenario options will then guide the physical development of a housing architecture that is transformative in its inherent flexibility. For each of the scenarios, the user and program accommodated by the individual house or series of houses will prove to be the catalyst for building growth and transformation, on a local scale, and within the urban fabric. In this way, the thesis exploits the potential of the contextual polyvalent house in an urban setting as it strives to emphasize the vital importance of flexibility within architecture, reinforcing the power of controlled, bottom-up intervention. iii • abstract
PART 1 • Thesis Position "Every form is the frozen momentary image of a process. Therefore the building is a moment of becoming and not a solidified end. " 1 -El Lissitzky “The contemporary city-dweller is self-assured and intelligent. He has the capacity to anticipate changes in his environment and adapt like a chameleon." 2 -Adriaan Geuze 2000
Introduction: flexibility in a changing cultural landscape It is imperative for 21st designers to move at least as fast as technology does. Technological advances have created a fluid physical, sociological, and economic condition that reject traditional ideas of permanence in all disciplines. The shifting cultural conditions that are an inheritance of this trajectory must be reflected in our physical, and thus architectural, world. [1.3] Flexibility in a physical context is imperative if we are to create meaningful and effective spaces for the contemporary era. We can trace the changes in our present-day reality to the beginning of the 18th century. The economic, social, and physical changes that marked the Industrial Revolution continued to evolve as a result of the major technological advancements and social upheaval that followed WWII. Industry shifted from heavy materials like steel and coal to lighter materials like chemicals and plastics, ultimately becoming lighter and lighter (electronics, software) until they literally disappeared to transform into our virtual world.3 The weightlessness that characterizes this virtual reality points toward contemporary throw-away attitudes that result in widespread mass consumption.4 Of course, these attitudes have direct environmental (physical) consequences. This new reality poses a difficult and contradictory context in which to build socalled permanent buildings. Simply put, permanence is impossible in any context.
Flexibility in architecture therefore becomes a viable and indispensable strategy for contemporary designers. Specifically, flexible housing provides the optimal place to develop applicable flexible strategies. part I • THESIS POSITION
| 01
[1.1]
“I really believe that it is citizens to whom we should be giving explanations, not other architects5” -Alejandro Aravena
Flexibility vs. Form [1.2]
[1.3]
[1.4]
[1.5] 02 |
There is no question that designers are responding to the fast paced, evolving transformation of the modern world. Flexibility is essential to James Corner’s embrace of Landscape Urbanism which “marks a productive attitude towards indeterminacy, open-endedness, intermixing and cross-disciplinarily.6” [1.1] Margaret Crawford describes applications of Henri Lefebvre’s ‘thirdspace,’ which defines flexibility in its multi-use, transitional, spatial character.7Adriaan Geuze designs planned-unplanned spaces that intentionally facilitate flexible use. [1.2] For many architects however, design strategies become purely formal responses as they move toward amorphous, evolutionary forms that are metaphorically representative of the current realities. These forms are generated via different processes, and are responses to various stimuli. [1.4] Even as these buildings may respond to actual site or programmatic conditions, their formal character is dominant. Form may be metaphorical, purely sculptural, or a theoretical investigation, but is always the priority. [1.5] In an increasingly overpopulated, polluted, resource-depleted, poverty-stricken earth, it’s hard to justify the increasing number of architects who are drawn to this form dominated architecture. Alejandro Aravena, the founder of Elemental, a ‘do-tank’ that uses architecture to address social problems, criticizes the overall lack of a resolution-driven, pragmatic approach by so many contemporary architects. As these architects, in the profession and in academia, fixate on a radically advancing technological reality, they become increasingly obsessed with the endless possibilities of a form-driven architecture that may pretend to have real consequences for a desperate world but will more likely remain a fantastical utopian vision or an intricate art exhibition displayed in the gallery.
"All of architecture is colored by the problem of the house.8” -Jean Helion “The cultural definition of the private house is undergoing great change, a transformation that, in itself, can generate significant architectural invention.9” -Terence Riley, 1999 [1.6]
“The modern house continues to be the site of choice for formal experimentation, but it is also a finely calibrated indicator of a society’s mind set. Perhaps more than any other building type, the house illustrates our preoccupation with technology, environment, global culture and identify…our ongoing engagement with modern life.10 “ -Dung, Ngo
Significance of the House [1.7]
[1.8]
[1.9]
part I • THESIS POSITION
[1.10]
Flexibility is crucial to creating integrative design solutions to contemporary complexities. The design of flexible housing is especially useful for identifying design strategies within the greater context of flexible architecture, resulting from the unique role housing has played in architectural experimentation throughout architecture history. The house is representative of a bottom-up approach to architecture that should value the occupant, the program, the site, the tectonics, and form, with a unifying, undeniable thread that is outside physical realities. It follows then, that the house is the ideal place to practice architectural theory. Mies’ Farnsworth House is the ultimate lesson in minimalism. [1.6] Philip Johnson’s Glass House enables a post-modern dialogue between them. [1.8] Venturi’s mother’s house reflects his architecture-as-symbol approach to buildings. Frank Lloyd Wright is quite literally a household name in the United States. Architecture will always have a foot planted in any one of the houses designed Le Corbusier. [1.7] Peter Eisenman's houses are a game. [1.9] The small scale of the house- its shifting program, its changing occupant, and its relationship to site- is the perfect place to refine an always evolving architectural condition. As society changes drastically with each generation, the house remains an honest reflection of that generation’s cultural values. The transformative potential for contemporary architecture is intrinsic to the domestic lessons of approachability, pragmatism, optimism, and humility: essential character traits of flexibility. Flexible housing, therefore, is not only significant in its relevance to modernity, but essential in its promise to seek and find solutions to flexible architecture. | 03
“Each form should therefore, instead of being neutral, contain the greatest possible variety of propositions, which, without limiting the various users to one specific direction, can constantly initiate other associations in him.�11- Herman Hertzberger, 1977
[1.11]
[1.14] 04 |
[1.12]
[1.13]
[1.15]
[1.16]
"To use a building is also to make it, either by physical transformation, such as moving walls or furniture, by using it in ways not previously imagined or by conceiving it anew" 12-Jonathon Hill “The speed of modernization and the unpredictability inherent in the process makes it very difficult to establish reality for such a slow-moving medium as buildings. It often happens that programs undergo radical change even during the design process.” 13 -Bernard Leupen
Flexible Housing DEFINITION
A useful classification of flexible housing is described by Bernard Leupen in his introduction to the book, Towards Time-Based Architecture. First, the permanent and partly changeable building, which includes frame building types that support user-generated infill. [1.11] [1.13] Second, there are easily demountable and transportable buildings, [1.12] and the third references the polyvalent building, a finished building that is spatially designed for flexibility of program within it, ranging from multi-use, generic spaces to flexible architectural elements like Japanese-styled fusuma. [1.15] PROGRAM, USER, SITE
Flexible housing must address the three major factors that shape any building: program, user and site.
part I • THESIS POSITION
PROGRAM As technology advances by leaps and bounds, building program must be able to change just as quickly. Today’s successful architecture provides spaces that can predict unforeseen programmatic needs and adjust accordingly. USER The implications of the term ‘user’ as compared to ‘occupant’ are significant. Occupant assumes a passive utilization of an object that was designed for a specific purpose. Users, on the other hand, literally utilize buildings, actively modifying for individual needs as necessary. There must be an increased awareness of the diversity of the user as well. SITE Careful integration of building with site is essential to ensuring better flexibility that results in longer building life, particularly in an urban context. Both the continual growth and incessant deterioration of cities occurs rapidly and simultaneously, and careful integration of site and building is an essential part of ensuring that buildings can adapt to evolving site conditions. | 05
“Cellophane House is assembled rather than constructed. It can disappear as easily as it appears. At the end of its life, it will be disassembled rather than demolished.” 14- from KTA’s website
[1.17]
06 |
“We should try not to forecast what will happen, but try to make provisions for the unforeseen” 15 -NJ Habraken
Flexible Housing: CASE STUDIES 1+ 2 USER.GENERATED. Quinta Monroy, Iquique, Chile by Alejandro Aravena/ Elemental
N.J. Habraken’s open approach to building is concretized in the housing project Alejandro Aravena designed in Iquique, Chile in 2003. Given a minimal budget with which to build low-income housing for 100 growing families living illegally in the center of the city, he designed a flexible physical framework that provided a stand-alone “half a house” for every family. The semi-detached houses were designed to encourage families to ultimately construct the remainder of the house as it became physically necessary or financially feasible for them. Aravena hoped that the combination of good location and user-invested housing system would increase property values, compared to the general trend of depreciation in social housing. [1.17] DEMOUNTABLE. PRE.FABRICATED. Cellophane House by Kieren Timberlake [1.18]
part I • THESIS POSITION
The recent surge of interest in pre-fabrication has its roots in pre and post WWII pre fabricated housing systems. In today’s escalating technological reality, contemporary architects are again experimenting with pre-fabrication, with its promise for flexible design, affordability and sustainability. The Cellophane house, designed and built for the Museum of Modern Art’s Home Delivery exhibition in 2008, reflects Kieren Timberlake's innovative approach to both pre-fabrication and housing. KTA’s system straddles a position that is between the current construction industry’s use of thousands of pre-fabricated individual components and large-scale pre-fabrication of program defined elements. Off-site fabrication of customizable unitized building elements with incorporated building systems allow site- and userspecific flexibility. Elements (floor, ceilings, stair, bathrooms, mechanical rooms) are bolted (vs. welded) to an aluminum structural frame, and can theoretically be manipulated and replaced as needed. [1.18] | 07
“We must continuously search for archetypal forms which, because they can be associated with multiple meanings, can not only absorb a program, but can also generate one. Form and program evoke each other.� 16 -Herman Hertzberger, from lectures pre-1973
[1.19a]
[1.19e] 08 |
[1.19b]
[1.19c]
[1.19f]
[1.19g]
[1.19d]
[1.19h]
Flexible Housing: CASE STUDY 3 POLYVALENT BUILDING Diagoon Houses by Herman Hertzberger, The Netherlands
Jonathon Hill, program director at London’s Bartlett School of Architecture, describes a contradictory, but coexisting, humble, and paternal quality in the work of Hertzberger. 17 If flexibility in architecture swings between a user-infilled structural framework and a fixed range of flexible possibilities determined by specific architectural elements, Herman Hertzberger belongs theoretically in the former camp, but technically approaches the latter. Unlike John Habraken, for whom form is wholly replaced by a framework structure and then filled in with dwellings by individual occupants, 18 Hertzberger maintains a higher level of control over his framework-which-is-form within and without his buildings. [1.19e] For Hertzberger, form is essential to designing a building that empowers its users numerous opportunities for flexibility over a lifetime. He manipulates architectural elements to create environments that facilitate versatility of space, and flexibility for the user. Architectural elements are much more than framework: they include walls, ceilings, and floors, but deliberately placed in such a way to create polyvalence; 19 versatility of space. This initial framework-form allows the user to creatively react to the initial building, even as it deliberately guides the spatial character of those post-occupied modifications through a sophisticated understanding of spatial relationships. Hertzberger creates spatial redundancy within an open plan as defined by a prescribed sectional framework-form, using a deliberate strategies to encourage flexibility. Some of these methods include defining fixed elements, [1.19a] using neutral, easy-toassemble materials, [1.19g] designing sectional spatial adjacencies, [1.19b] slack space, [1.19d] [1.19h] and connections between undefined spaces. part I • THESIS POSITION
| 09
“...involving users in the design process does not necessarily produce better architecture, but neither does working with users automatically lead to the enfeeblement of architects.” 20- Jonathan Hill
“Each form should therefore, instead of being neutral, contain the greatest possible variety of propositions, which, without limiting the various users to one specific direction, can constantly initiate other associations in him.” 21- Herman Hertzberger, 1977
Case studies: ANALYSIS Flexible housing must acknowledge the difference between the noncreative vs. the creative occupant. Aravena’s housing project sets up a framework that allows for adaptability by relinquishing design control to the user. The project enables a flexibility that increases the emotional value of the house for its user; although it is more difficult to envision that these personalized houses will increase the monetary value of the property. The flexibility inherent within KTA’s Cellophane House is more encouraging, as it envisions an affordable and sustainable construction method, even as it promises adaptability. If we look at its implementation on the actual housing market, however, affordability and adaptability are not immediately applicable, in part because they depend heavily on external economic and political factors, like the slow-to-change real-estate and construction industries. Comparatively, Hertzberger’s Diagoon houses sets up a series of lessons that can be implemented even within this difficult context. Compared to Aravena, Hertzberger enables a more deliberate dialogue between the architect and his user, designing a building that places walls, ceilings, and floors in such a way as to very deliberately control the future creation of user-generated walls, ceilings and floors.22 Thus, he is able to control the spatial quality of the future house by creating future opportunities for the occupant that are not rigid in a mechanical way, but are also not overwhelmingly endless for a non-designer. A thorough understanding of vertical and horizontal space sizes, both initial and future, is a key determinant for additions that enhance the original house. Proximities of those variably sized spaces and the circulation through them are carefully considered for initial and future use. Hertzberger imagines numerous possibilities and layouts for his houses within his own controlled system so as to create as many options for as many user and programmatic changes as possible. Multiscale levels of flexibility are coded within the original design, and it is this latent potential that makes this project so successful. In our evolving modern landscape, the latent potential of polyvalent buildings will prove to be an effectual strategy for flexibility in housing, as they create a lasting dialogue between the architect and the user. Combined with the promise of easy-to-assemble/ disassemble pre-fabricated components, we can propose a flexible housing system for the contemporary user in the contemporary city.
10 |
PART 2 • Thesis Proposal
Introduction: Urban Polyvalent Housing Polyvalent urban housing can effect both physical and figurative positive changes at multiple levels, from the unit to the greater neighborhood. Housing must accommodate the diverse user as it provides for a traditional housing program (home-as-home) and non-traditional program; (home-as-work, home-as-play or home-as-community). The design of the house facilitates the strengthening of the neighborhood, as it defines, and is defined by the street. Thus, dynamic DWELLING strives for flexibility for the individual user at the unit level , for the combined users at the building level, and for the total users of the neighborhood. [2.0] This underlying premise informs the thesis proposal. dynamic DWELLING exploits the active potential of flexible housing in an urban context, arguing that by using an easy to assemble and disassemble pre-fabricated system, as it is shaped by a series of structured rules, the urban dwelling can truly respond to the needs of today's fast-changing user, program and site.
part II • THESIS PROPOSAL
[2.0]
dynamic DWELLING occurs at the urban scale and the building + unit scale over 3 acts, emerging from a series of imagined scenarios developed to allow a wide range of user and program types, on a selected site. These scenarios represent a deliberate intent to broaden the typical definition of the house. The contemporary house blurs the boundaries between work, home and play, and this strategy will reinforce the influence of the house by asserting that a flexible house can provoke change within its urban setting through its insistence on program flexibility, for both the public and private realms. For each scenario, the user + program accommodated by the individual house or series of houses will be a catalyst for building growth and transformation, emphasizing the vital importance of flexible architecture, reinforcing the power of controlled, | 11 bottom-up intervention.
[2.1] BREWERYTOWN, PHILADELPHIA, PA 12 |
[2.2]
[2.3]
[2.4]
[2.5]
Proposed Site: BREWERYTOWN, PHILADELPHIA, PA For post-industrial cities like Philadelphia, vacant lots and vacant buildings define many neighborhoods, as diminished populations contribute to increased crime rates and failing neighborhoods, although recent interventions by both government agencies and private developers are helping to alter some of these neighborhoods for the better. The transforming nature of this urban context sets an ideal stage for polyvalent housing. The development of urban housing must address changing site conditions, as well as a diversifying population whose needs must coexist with, but may differ from, the existing population. Turning away from the model of the single family home as a pre-designed commodity, the polyvalent, urban house cannot ignore differing owner user types, changing family dynamics, variable cultural considerations and changing programmatic needs that will fluctuate as site conditions change. Some contemporary Philadelphia developers and designers, like Interface Studio and Onions Flats, to name a couple, have begun addressing some of these issues. [2.2] [2.3]
part II • THESIS PROPOSAL
Brewerytown [2.1] is a neighborhood in Philadelphia that typifies these shifting site conditions. In 2002, Brewerytown was identified as a target area of Philadelphia’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, which led to a comprehensive neighborhood plan, and also paved the way for considerable investment by Westrum Development Company and Pennrose Properties to build more than 600 market-rate units [2.5] by 2005 on the vacant industrial lots next to Fairmount Park. MM Partners is a Brewerytown-based developer whose recent work includes both adaptive reuse projects and new construction, much of it on or near Girard Avenue [2.4]. | 13
[2.6] SITE ANALYSIS
[2.7] CRIME: homicides + robberies
reported Nov 2010-Nov 2011 citymaps.phila.gov/CrimeMap/
14 |
[2.8] INCOME: by census 2005-2009 policymap.com
Brewerytown, Philadelphia, PA Brewerytown is located northwest of Center City, bordered by the Schuylkill River and Fairmount Park (west), the Fairmount neighborhood (south), and 25th street (east). Typical of Philadelphia, the neighborhood developed in the 19th century. as a result of the industry built along the river, in this case multiple breweries ultimately shut down by Prohibition in the early 20th century. [2.6] Today, the neighborhood is diverse, both in its population and its physical make-up. Demographics, income levels, ages and household type have become increasingly variable with new developments. The neighborhood is mostly composed of typical Philadelphia row homes, largely residential, with a strong commercial presence on Girard Avenue. The site is served by public transit;bus service and the no.15 trolley, although many residents have cars. The neighborhood also supports numerous active institutions [2.20]. Worthy of note is the Athletic Recreation Center [2.16], as well as a recent community garden by Marathon grill [2.17], both on 27th street. Within Brewerytown, the thesis focuses on a limited number of blocks to test the flexible housing system, located between 26th and 28th streets, Thompson street to the south, and Jefferson to the north. [2.10] The character of the neighborhood changes considerably from block to block, and even within blocks themselves [2.14-2.15]. For example, 28th street is composed of a dense, well maintained, line of row homes defining both sides of the street [2.11], whereas Marston street [2.12], just one block over, is defined almost entirely of vacant lots and row homes. [2.9] PARCEL OWNERSHIP
part II • THESIS PROPOSAL
vacant land city owned
| 15
16 |
Brewerytown, Philadelphia, PA: VACANT CONDITIONS
[2.11] 28TH STREET west side
[2.12] MARSTON ST. west side
part II • THESIS PROPOSAL
[2.13] PROPOSED SITE. vacant buildings | 17
[2.14] ETTING STREET east side
[2.15] ETTING ST. west side 18 |
[2.16] [2.17]
[2.18]
[2.19]
[2.20]
Brewerytown, Philadelphia, PA: LAND USE
[2.13] Proposed Site. VACANT BUILDINGS
part II • THESIS PROPOSAL
residential commercial institutional
| 19
20 |
[2.21] REPURPOSED VACANT LOTS
The paradoxical nature of the neighborhood imbues it with a latent potential for bottom up growth that is optimal for a flexible housing system. Even as the site is 30% vacant, a closer look reveals that many of these vacant lots and buildings have been positively reclaimed by local residents [2.21].
Brewerytown, Philadelphia, PA: LOT TRANSFORMATION
part II • THESIS PROPOSAL
When viewed together, the dilapidated building on the left and the active, well-maintained building on the left represent a basic premise of dynamic DWELLING- that the latent potential for bottom-up growth and transformation of a neighborhood lies in each building. Each building has the potential to be the catalyst that effects the revitalization of the next building, and the next, ultimately transforming an entire neighborhood. | 21
1
2 DENTIST R E A L E S TAT E B R O K E R
D E N TA L S T U D E N T S HOUSEHOLD: 2 adults BEDROOMS: 2 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 3 EXTRA: large shared space study spaces
3
USER A
HOUSEHOLD: 2 adults, 2 children BEDROOMS: 3 K I TC H E N : l a r g e OFFICE: 1 EXTRA: large shared space den
HOUSEHOLD: 1adult, 2 children BEDROOMS: 2 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 1 EXTRA: easy access to daycare center
W O R K S P AC E : 2 adults, 12 children BEDROOMS: 0 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 1 with two toilets EXTRA: outdoor play space
CAFE
USER C
USER F
HOUSEHOLD: 1 adults BEDROOMS: 1 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 1 EXTRA: large open space easy access to USER E
USER A
USER B
HOUSEHOLD: 1adult BEDROOMS: 1 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 1 EXTRA: connection to USER A
USER E f o r m e r DAYC A R E O W N E R HOUSEHOLD:
3 adults BEDROOMS: 2 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 1
USER C
USER D
W O R K S P AC E : 6 employees 25 seats K I TC H E N : c u s t o m B AT H R O O M : 1 EXTRA:
USER A
BUILDING OWNER
DAYC A R E
USER B
DAYC A R E W O R K S P AC E : 2 adults, 12 children BEDROOMS: 0 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 1 with two toilets EXTRA: outdoor play space
HOUSEHOLD: 2 adults BEDROOMS: 1 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 1 EXTRA: large open space
DENTIST
SINGLE MOM + DAYC A R E O W N E R
S I N G L E M O M + DAY CARE OWNER
HOUSEHOLD: 1 adult, 2 child BEDROOMS: 2 K I TC H E N : l a r g e B AT H R O O M : 1 EXTRA: easy access to daycare center
WEB DESIGNER NURSE
R E S TA U R A N T W O R K S P AC E : 15 employees 50 seats K I TC H E N : c u s t o m B AT H R O O M : 1 EXTRA:outdoor seating ground floor entry two entrances
USER B
USER D
USER D
[2.23] PROPOSED USER + PROGRAM 22 |
User + Program: PROPOSED SCENARIOS Residents of Brewerytown are a diverse group, including a core set of established residents with low-to-middle incomes as well as a much newer group of non-local newcomers with higher incomes and contrasting values. dynamic DWELLING is designed to mediate these changing user groups, remaining neutral enough to accommodate vastly different cultural values, household sizes, family make-up, and programmatic needs, while recognizing the need for personalization and individualism. On the urban scale, we will see large and small scale developers as well as private lot owners. At the building scale, users and users needs are envisioned as they change over time. The thesis conceives of these users within the three imagined scenarios, beginning with a lot owner who chooses to instigate the system because he is encouraged by some of the successful projects within the neighborhood. The users and their programmatic needs change over the three acts, and dynamic DWELLING must adjust accordingly. ACT I will see a retired insurance broker, a widower, as the lot owner, his dental student son and roommate as well as a daycare owner and single mother of one. By ACT II, the dental student has married a real estate agent, is now a dentist, and they are raising two daughters. The daycare owner is now a single mother of two, and there is a new cafe run by a group of friends. In ACT III, the dentist is newly divorced, the daycare owner is no longer single, and her two children are grown. The daycare has moved elsewhere, and the cafe has expanded into a restaurant. New users include the dentist's father, the lot owner, and the college roommate and wife, a web designer and nurse. part II • THESIS PROPOSAL
| 23
[2.24] BUILDING TECHNOLOGY 24 |
[2.25]
[2.26]
[2.27]
[2.28]
Building Technologies
living room office bedroom den
08
07
dynamic DWELLING takes advantage of current off-site fabrication technologies. [2.25] [2.26] Unitized building elements with incorporated building systems set within an aluminum frame allow site-specific, and program-specific flexibility. Elements (floor, ceilings, stair, bathrooms, mechanical rooms) are bolted (vs. welded) to an aluminum structural frame, and can be manipulated and replaced as needed. This approach allows dismantlement and re-use of elements, creating a fundamentally sustainable and adaptable architecture. [2.24]
exterior slack space with storage
office bedroom playroom
06
The system bases its logic on a number of fundamental premises. These are a fixed service core, neutral [program-flexible] rooms, slack space [including exterior to interior spaces], panelized exterior and interior partitions, free interior partitions, minimal hallways, furniture used for space division, and easy assembly and disassembly.
08
06 studio playroom guest bedroom den
office living room bedroom playroom
LOWER LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL scale 1’-0” = 1/4”
[2.29] FLEXIBLE PLAN LAYOUTS
part II • THESIS PROPOSAL
The structural frame is defined by a constant 12x12 grid for an optimal neutral room that can support any number of programmatic functions. [2.29] All service elements are housed within a 12x6 frame, including the factory assembled kitchen, bathroom and stair blocks. Service-integrated panelized floors and walls are affixed to the frame, with system-free interior partitions placed within the units as desired. Sunshades and balconies come in a wide range of colors, allowing individualization and customization in the tradition of the Philadelphia rowhome. [3.6] [3.7] Used in conjunction with the system rule-set, the possibilities for change are endless, but remain controlled, ensuring true flexibility as the user and program fluctuates. | 25
[3.1] BREWERYTOWN ACT III. model 26 |
PART 3 • Thesis Design
Introduction: dynamic DWELLING: active potential of flexible housing dynamic DWELLING is generated at the urban scale, building scale, and unit scale over 3 acts, emerging from the series of imagined scenarios developed to accommodate a wide range of user and program types. Each building has the built-in potential to act as a catalyst for further growth. The ruleset is used at the large scale and the small scale, ensuring that user and program flexibility is accounted for. Site conditions are assessed and considered as well, ensuring contextual appropriateness for each building. Stormwater management, amount of green public space and retail space must satisfy certain conditions that ensures they are addressed appropriately. At the urban scale, the system assumes both large scale developers and private lot owners as instigators. Each new project instigates continuous changes, externally, and internally. Large projects act as catalysts for smaller projects, small projects inspire larger ones. At the building scale, users needs are accounted for, and program carefully defined. Units are configured as necessary, with future needs built into the ruleset at the beginning. Units can be combined and separated, growing and shrinking as needed.
[3.2] ELEVATION STUDIES
part III • THESIS DESIGN
To this end, the 3 imagined scenarios will illustrate the potentials of dynamic DWELLING on multiple scales, for multiple users, for a multi-dimensional neighborhood. | 27
28 | part III • THESIS DESIGN
Ruleset: DECISION MATRIX The ruleset acts as a design overlay for the generation of dynamic DWELLING at multiple scales. Design emerges from the careful considerations of user, program, site as they are defined and specified. These will ultimately generate our unit, building and site design after being qualified by the ruleset. Consider the user: household type, household count, ages. Consider the program: sleeping, relaxing, eating, washing, working. Consider site: rainwater collection, sun orientation, adjacent buildings, block location. The ruleset qualifies all this input by requiring specific conditions that ensure controlled, quality building output even as flexibility remains paramount. Program considerations are translated to room count, service blocks count, retail spaces. Site considerations are translated to green open space, solar panels, retail locations. Specific examples: private outdoor space is determined based on 25% cubic feet of individual units. Commercial space is required for every eight units, and at every corner. Public outdoor space is determined based on 20% of total building square footages. 100% storm water management is required. The ruleset not only ensures individual flexibility of units and buildings, but ensures that the system acknowledges its context and sets the groundwork for future growth at the site scale as well. [3.3] RULESET
part III • THESIS DESIGN
| 29
initial project
M U LT I P L E LOTS
P AC K AG E D C I T Y - O W N E D LOT S : I N C E N T I V E D E V E LO P M EDNETV E LO P E R
M U LT I P L E LOTS
a
P AC K AG E D C I T Y - O W N E D LOT S : I N C E N T I V E D E V E LO P M E N T
M U LT I P L E LOTS
M U LT I P L E LOTS
P AC K AG E D P R I VAT E - O W N E D LOT S
P AC K AG E D P R I VAT E - O W N E D LOT S
S I NG LE LOT P R I VAT E LOT OWNERS
EXISTING OWNER
b
S H A R E D LOTS
1
S H A R E D LOTS
c
NEIGHBORING OWNER
S I N G L E LOT EXISTING OWNER
NEIGHBORING OWNER
21
a
2
a
2
2 b
1 30 |
part III • THESIS DESIGN
2
dynamic DWELLING in 3 acts: URBAN GENERATION
3
3
3 b
Working with the shifting conditions on the existing site, the system ruleset was tested at the larger multiple block context over 3 acts as it supports this architectural framework that not only interacts with, but effectively becomes the changing site as it responds to the insertion of shifting program and user
3 c
[3.4]
The site contains a large number of city owned parcels [2.9], so it follows that a large scale developer could instigate the system by building a couple of buildings on city owned parcels as part of a compulsory low-income requirement for a project located elsewhere in the city. The rule-set dictates the percentages of green/ open space and ground floor retail, so the project directly impacts the shaping of the neighborhood. By the next scenario, we see phase two of the developer's project, as well as the beginnings of small scale infill projects. By the third scenario, the blocks are significantly more defined as buildings are altered and adjusted as they respond to user needs. These user needs change in scale and type over time, directly influencing the densification of the architecture. In each scenario, each new project instigates future projects as the house becomes the catalyst for change and growth. Projects may be funded by developers, individual private lot owners or multiple lot owners, but the built-in potential for endless manipulations of the house are always possible, in ways that allow the neighborhood to expand and detract with minimal effort.
part III • THESIS DESIGN
[3.4] URBAN GENERATION in 3 ACTS
3 | 31
1
2
building building 4 T H FLO O R
3 R D FLO O R
4 T H FLO O R
3 RD FLO O R
USE R A
2 N D FLO O R
U SER A
2 N D FLO O R
USE R B
USE R C 1 S T FLO O R
USE R A
1 S T FLO O R
USE R B
USE R C
U SER B
U SER C
U SER D
32 |
part III • THESIS DESIGN
U SER A
U SER B
U SER C
U SER D
3
dynamic DWELLING in 3 acts: BUILDING CASE STUDY For each individual project, dynamic DWELLING must adjust according. As users fluctuate and programmatic needs change over 3 acts, the building evolves to accommodate them. For this case study, our users described previously (p.23) will grow, shrink, and change as life happens, and the building will grow, shrink and change accordingly. Act I begins with a three story house built by the lot owner because he was intrigued by the success of the developer project across the street. The ruleset requires a commercial space on the first floor, which is rented out as a daycare. The owner's college aged son and a roommate lives on half of the second floor and the entire third floor. The daycare owner, a single mother, rents the small studio on the second floor.
USE R F
USE R A
By Act II, the owner collaborates with the owner of the lot next door to build a cafe on the first floor. He also adds another floor for his son, now a dentist, and his growing family. The daycare owner is able to expand into the entire second floor.
USE R E
This paves the way for Act III, where the cafe has expanded into a full size restaurant and takes over the space previously used by the daycare. The owner moves into a small apartment adjacent to his newly divorced son, who rents the top floor of his duplex to his college roommate and wife. The daycare owner, no longer a single mother, still lives on the second floor, in a unit reconfigured for her needs.
USE R B
USE R D
part III • THESIS DESIGN
[3.5] CASE STUDY in 3 ACTS
Clearly there are endless opportunities for change within the system, accommodating our series of users as life happens, adapting and adjusting as necessary. | 33
dynamic DWELLING: REFLECTIONS [3.7] TYPICAL BREWERYTOWN ROWHOME
dynamic DWELLING emerges from my belief that the house holds a significant position in the development of architecture, and exerts considerable influence over the shaping of the built environment. As traditional ideas of permanence become less relevant to contemporary architecture, flexibility is essential to the design of buildings. If we can identify the methods with which to design flexible housing, those lessons will translate quickly to the greater discipline. Creating a system that will address user, program and site conditions simultaneously, dynamic DWELLING sets up a framework that can be adapted for endless situations, from the urban scale to individual units. The transformation of every situation into a unit or building that will be embraced by its owner is one challenge, as the translation of the framework into form is considered. Designing flexible architecture that is customized and personalized for its ever-changing user is essential. Acknowledging the user's emotional attachment to house/home underlies successful flexible housing. It remains unconcluded whether the ruleset can incorporate this premise. Ultimately, the thesis focuses on one type of building technology, selects a specific site, and identifies particular users. To truly test the framework, all the conditions can and should be altered. What are the lessons learned if we use traditional building technologies on a suburban site? What if we alter an existing building on a rural site? Is dynamic DWELLING this flexible?
[3.6] PROPOSED ELEVATION 34 |
dynamic DWELLING strives to emphasize the vital importance of flexibility within architecture, reinforcing the value of bottom-up intervention, as related to the significance of the house within the greater built environment. If it does this, it is successful.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
WORKS CITED
Anderson, Mark and Anderson, Peter. Prefab Prototypes: Site Specific Design for Offsite Construction. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007. Aravena, Alejandro. Interview with Arch Daily. 09 .December 2008. http://www.archdaily.com/9942/ad-interviews- alejandro-aravena/ Corner, James. “Landscape Urbanism.” In Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape, Eds. Mostafavi, Mohsen and Ciro najle. London: AA Publications, 2004: , 58-63. Crawford, Margaret. “Blurring the Boundaries: Public Space and Private Life.” In Everyday Urbanism Eds. Chase, John Crawford, Margaret and John Kaliski, New York: Monacelli Press, 1999: 22-35. Gausa, Manuel, Salazar, Jaime. Housing+Single Family Housing. Barcelona: Actar, 2002. Geuze, Adriaan. “Introduction to West 8.” In West 8 Landscape Architects. New York: Skira Editore, 2000. Habraken, N.J. Supports. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. Habraken, N.J. "Type as Social Agreement." Paper presented at teh asian Congress of Architects, Seoul, 1988. Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students in Architecture. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010 Publishers, 1993. “Hertzberger, Herman.” Architecture and Urbanism (75). (March 1977): [45]-146. Hill, Jonathan. “The Use of Architects.” Urban Studies 38 (2) (2001): 351-365. Home Delivery: Fabricating the Modern Dwelling. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2008. Leupen, Bernard, Rene Heijne and Jasper van Zwol, eds. Time-Based Architecture. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2005. Ngo, Dung. World House Now. New York: Universe Publishing, 2003. "Prefab Perfected." Dwell (12). (Dec/Jan 2012). Riley, Terence. The Un-Private house. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1999. Schneider, Tatjana and Jeremy Till. Flexible Housing. Oxford: Elsevier Linacre House, 2007.
1. As quoted by Schneider & Till. Flexible Housing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. P.18 2. Geuze, Adrian. “Introduction to West 8” p.13. 3. Leupen, Bernard. “Towards Time-Based Architecture” in Time-Based Architecture, 010 Publishers, 2005. P.12. 4. ibid. 5. http://www.archdaily.com/9942/ad-interviews-alejandro-aravena/ 6. Corner, James. “Landscape Urbanism.” P.597. Hill, Jonathan. “Use of architects.” Urban Studies, 38 (2) 2001, P. 354 7. Crawford, Margaret. “Blurring the boundaries: public Space and Private Life”p. 29. 8. Helion, Jean. "Terms of Life, Terms of Space." L'Architecture D'aujourd'hui (316). (1998) p.46. 9. Riley, Terence. The Un-Private House. The Museum of Modern Art, 1999 p.36. 10. Ngo, Dung. World House Now: contemporary architectural directions, New York: Universe Publishing, 2003, p.7. 11. “Hertzberger, Herman.” Architecture and Urbanism (75). (March 1977). P. 112. 12. Hill, Jonathan. “The Use of Architects.” Urban Studies 38 (2) (2001). P. 361. 13. Leupen, Bernard. “Towards Time-Based Architecture” in Time-Based Architecture, 010 Publishers, 2005. P.12. 14. “Cellophane House: Museum of Modern Art, NY, NY” http://kierantimberlake.com/featured_ projects/cellophane_house_1.html# 15. N.J. Habraken, Supports: A Mass Alternative to Housing. 1961. 16. Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students in Architecture. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010 Publishers, 1993. P. 149. 17. Schneider, Tatjana and Jeremy Till. Flexible Housing. Oxford: Elsevier Linacre House, 2007. P. 82. 18. Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students in Architecture. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010 Publishers, 1993. P. 149. 19. Schneider, Tatjana and Jeremy Till. Flexible Housing. Oxford: Elsevier Linacre House, 2007. P. 82. 20. Hill, Jonathan. “The Use of Architects.” Urban Studies 38 (2) (2001). P. 362. 21. “Hertzberger, Herman.” Architecture and Urbanism (75). (March 1977). P. 134.
References • | 35
IMAGES CITED [0.1] [0.2] [1.1] [1.2] [1.3] [1.4] [1.5] [1.6] [1.7] [1.8] [1.9] [1.10] [1.11] [1.12] [1.13] [1.14] [1.15] [1.16] [1.17] [1.18]
Pickard, Crystal. photograph. Brewerytown steps. 06 November 2011. Images from the 2012 MoMA exhibition, "Foreclosed: Rehousing the American Dream." http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/
foreclosed/
Corner, James. Fresh Kills, State Island, NY. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/fresh-kills-new-yorks-next-wind-farm/ Adriaan Geuze, Schouwburgplein. Rotterdam. http://another29.exblog.jp/6790019/ Asymptote, Virtual NY Stock Exchange. http://www.asymptote.net/interiors-and-furniture/nyse-3dt-virtual-reality-environment/ Koolhaas, Rem. Seattle Public Library. http://www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/ Hadid, Zaha. Performing Arts Center. Abu Dhabi. http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/abu-dhabi-performing-arts-centre/ Farnsworth House by Mies van der Roe http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm Maison Domino by Le Corbuser http://www.answers.com/topic/le-corbusier Glass House by Philip Johnson http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1638020,00.html House VI by Peter Eisenman http://www.archdaily.com/63267/ad-classics-house-vi-peter-eisenman/ Embryonic House by Greg Lynn http://www.glform.com/embryonic/embryonic.htm Uhl, Ottokar & Joseph Weber. Hollabrunn. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3374622 AuerbachHaus by W.Gropius and A.Meyer. Schneider, Tatjana and Jeremy Till. Flexible Housing. Oxford: Elsevier Linacre House, 2007. p.22. Friedman, Yona, La Villa Spatilae. http://dprbcn.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/lordre-des-simulacres/ Living Homes by Kieren Timberlake Architects. http://www.livinghomes.net/homesTimberlake.html Void Space/ Hinged Space by Steven Holl. http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?type=&id=36 Silodam by MVRDV. http://www.arcspace.com/architects/mvrdv/silodam_article.html Quinta Monroy by Aravena, Alejandro (Elemental). http://www.elementalchile.cl/viviendas/quinta-monroy/quinta-monroy/# Cellophane House by Kieren Timberlake Architects, for the Museum of Modern Art Home Delivery Exhibition, 2008.
http://www.momahomedelivery.org/
[1.19a-h] Hertzberger, Herman. Diagoon diagram. Flicker Photo Set, “Herman Hertzberger� [2.2] [2.3] [2.4] [2.5] [2.26] [2.27] [2.28] [2.29]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/krokorr/sets/72157626003369047/with/5473849343/ Hertzberger, Herman. Diagoon houses. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dave7dean/471096936/ 100K House by Interface Studio. http://www.is-architects.com/main/index.php?/selected-work/100k-house/ Rag Flats by Onion Flats, 2007. http://www.onionflats.com/nl_onion.php MM Partners http://www.mmpartnersllc.com/MM_Partners,_LLC_Website/Home_Page_-_MM.html
Westrum Development Company, Pennrose Properties. Cantilever House by Anderson Anderson http://www.archdaily.com/56853/cantilever-house-anderson-anderson-architecture/ Loblolly House by Kieren Timberlake http://kierantimberlake.com/recognition/rec_loblolly_1.html Case Study House no. 8 by Charles and Ray Eames. Home Delivery: Fabricating the Modern Dwelling. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2008. p.94 System 3 by Oskar Leo Kaufmann and Albert Ruf. Home Delivery: Fabricating the Modern Dwelling. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2008. p.219
Unreferenced images are by author. 36 |
BRENDA MARGOLIS , MArch candidate • 2011-2012 • Temple University, Tyler School of art