Prototype

PROTOTYPE

“We were most interested in maximising the use of public resources to create a value much greater than

the sum of its parts. So, what was really new was the idea of value gain as a way to redefine quality” (Aravena, A. and Iacobelli, A. 2016: 191).

At the start of this century, Iacobelli’s program at the university of Catolica regarding public policies, laid

the foundations for their prototype, the Parallel Building. It was the inception of Elementals career in

social housing. Through refining their design and the presentation of abstract projects at many seminars, they approached MINVU once they thought they had a resilient design. A “typology capable of buying more expensive land (due to density) that simultaneously allowed for growth” (Aravena, A. and Iacobelli, A. 2016: 38). It was at this point that the national director at the Chile Barrio Program decided to hire

them for Quinta Monroy. They conducted a variety of participative workshops for the inhabitants, before

refining their design and making it site specific. Yet the parallel building already existed, without any

information on the adaptation the typology, raises the question, to what extent did the parallel typology

adapt other than costs, to the desires of the inhabitants? Economically, it is understandable that the

Parallel Building typology was retained, as they had identified that this was one way of purchasing the

land, but also improve existing living conditions, within the budgetary framework.

The success of this prototype and Elemental’s desired replicability, would ultimately be dependent on only using the public subsidies provided by the state US$7500 per unit. Quinta Monroy has demonstrated

that participation in design can have a place in the architectural world within the twenty-first century. It

has also shown that social housing within the global south can be achieved amongst the strict centralised

control of neoliberalism, shedding light upon architects and governments to explore similar techniques. Elemental “has proven that the problems of cities can inspire all of us to come up with creative and

effective ways to develop business models or design public policies to serve the needs and enrich the lives of those that need it the most”. (Trevino, L. 2016)

The notion of participatory design, engaging the public with the project is noted, but due to the convenient

families living within Quinta Monroy. The likelihood of them all requiring the same size and needs is highly

unlikely. Would a tabling a concept suggestive of equity, where one’s needs are already expressed into the initial handover, be out of the question? Marinovic, G. and Baek, J. (2016: 128) propose “reorienting the

first phase of the incremental housing process with the focus on the families’ needs and expectations for

house. This can be achieved through close collaboration with each family from the community. Architects

who designed the initial phase of the existing incremental houses communicated only with community

leaders. As an alternative to this type of design process, we suggest that architects who design the initial

phase of incremental houses should engage in conversation with every single family of a particular

community. Through this complex and time-consuming process of design, families would be able to get

housing units which are, from the beginning, adapted to grow progressively, according to their lifestyles

and habits.” Elemental could argue given that the considered flexibility of the design beyond handover

will eliminate this issue, but would a typical family of four have to immediately build?

The standardised replicability of the Parallel Building on a large site with unconventional corners, allowed

them to rotate units successfully at angles whether it may be a concave or convex. Suggesting that

their concept, on paper would be the most efficient one. Other options were considered, which reflected

the current housing market at the time. Ones that were of familiar style to the families; the detached,

terraced and multi-storey.

The detached typology was the preferred typology to the residents. A typology that they were also

expecting, but due to inefficient use of the site the scheme was scrapped. Out of the one hundred families

needed to rehouse, it could only accommodate thirty units. Aside from that there wouldn’t have been

enough state subsidy to purchase the land. Working with such low density, would’ve resulted in the

scheme being relocated to the cheapest land, on the peripheries of the city. It was at this point that Elemental “consciously avoided starting any search for a philanthropic donation of the land, because it would have threatened the future replication of the model” (Aravena, Iacobelli, 2016 p92).

The terraced typology is a method of increasing spatial efficiency on a site. In response to the local

surrounding the typical two storey row house was tested and yielded a better overall result. An issue

regarding this option, was that the families had the desire to expand their homes beyond handover. Other

one hundred could be rehoused within this typology setting, the scheme was eliminated.

Lastly, the multi-storey typology. Hugely efficient in terms of land use but without the flexibility for

growth. The specific policy Elemental were working within, meant it would have created homes that

were only thirty square metres, developing an even greater risk of overcrowding and a necessity for

expansion. Due to the historical incapacity, to determine maintenance responsibilities of the communal spaces, it was not well received to which point, “the families threatened us with a hungers trike if we dare to consider this type.” (Aravena, A. and Iacobelli, A. 2016: 96).

Elemental were concious not to displace the families, into the rural peripheries of the city, allowing

them to retain access to existing economic opportunities. A stance, which in fact apposed the usual

neoliberal housing policy, as land was considerably cheaper and therefore could accommodate many at

less expense for the state. Extending existing sewerage network to the peripheries could also be seen

as a longer-term investment, as the city’s population grows, this would enable the more developments

to spring up within the outskirts. New developments at the time were appearing in the outskirt region of

Alto Hospicio, therefore illustrating the states intention. A natural progression from this situation, would

be to have a new build development replace the existing, targeting towards the middle-class population,

ideally located in the city, thus, overall housing market of the area increasing. Elemental’s stance on

negating displacement, solely focussed on the opportunities for the families of Quinta Monroy, allowing

them to retain close access to the city’s amenities, services, jobs and education, facilitating the growth

of the community. Commuting times would double if families were located to Alto Hospicio, incurring a

more financial burden for them.