Werkpalast CoHousing: Case Study of Collective Reuse of a Prefabricated School Building

/DOCONF2019////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Werkpalast CoHousing: Case Study of Collective Reuse of a Prefabricated School Building Annamária BABOS PhD doctoral student Csonka Pál Doctoral School Department of Urban Planning and Design Faculty of Architecture Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME), 1111 Budapest, Muegyetem rkp. 3.

E-mail: a.babos@urb.bme.hu

Abstract There are many examples of community-based housing bottom-up developments from European cities, where valuable buildings have been saved. It is important to be aware that these collective developments can also assist in the continuous use and renovation of the post-socialist cities. This research paper shows the importance of recognizing the methods and effects of those community-based housing developments that integrate the current built environment. Community-based bottom-up housing developments (collective reuse) in mass housing neighborhood is really special, there are more Berlin projects in the planning phase, and some realized. Werkpalast Lichtenberg housing project (2010) in Berlin’s Lichtenberg district is a revitalization of a nursery school (1976) and garden. This project is a good example of reactivation and individualization of prefabricated building structures using new functions and existing resources. Through the analysis, it becomes clear that bottom-up initiatives have a positive impact on the inhabitants of the building, the neighborhood and through this on the whole city in a small and a large scale as well.

Keywords Cohousing, collective reuse, community-based, reactivation of prefabricated buildings

1 Adaptive reuse and post-socialist urban heritage In recent years post-socialist European cities are often unhealthy living habitats, both in a physical and mental way. During urban development our attitude towards the buildings actual condition is an important question.

Recycling old buildings have several advantages, old buildings physically and socially link us to our past and become a part of our cultural heritage. Adaptive reuse is defined as the process that adapts buildings for new functions while retaining their features. (Bunnel and Zaitzevsky). In the last three decades adaptive reuse in mass housing neighborhood became very important. This study shows Cohousing developments in mass housing neighborhoods and collects the advantages and possibilities of this reusing method.

2 Cohousing developments We know many examples of Cohousing developments from European cities where valuable buildings or blocks have been saved while the livable environment has been created. (La Found and Tsvetkova)

34

The different English terms for Cohousing (Collective Housing, Co-Housing, Common Housing, Co-Habitat and Cooperative housing) mean almost the same. The definition of Cohousing is the following: “Cooperative Housing is an association of people (co-operators), which cooperatively owns and manages apartments and common areas. Individual members own shares in the cooperative and pay rent which entitles them to occupy an apartment as if they were owners and to have equal access to the common areas.” (id22 – Institute for Creative Sustainability) Creating and operating cohousing buildings usually places emphasis on sustainability, compared with other types of housing. Four aspects of sustainability stand by cohousing developments: (Marckmann et al) - more sustainable technologies built into houses; - smaller and more compact houses; - pro-environmental behaviour of residents; - environmental advantages for one- and two-person households.

Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// These aspects could not be parallelized with the four pillars of the sustainable development (Culture, Society, Environment and Economy). Therefore this paper analyzes the case study (Werkpalast CoHousing) in the aspects of sharing economy, social goods and environment.

3. Collective reuse 3.1 Collective reuse of educational buildings Collective reuse is a process that adapts buildings for collective living function while retaining their valuable features. These projects are community-based and bottom-up housing developments. The European case studies show, that collective reuse is a mixed solution for preserving the valuable built heritage, reducing urban sprawl and developing neighborhood interaction. (Babos) Among the European examples are abandoned residential (Wilma, Berlin), educational (Grote Pyr, Hague), and industrial (Sargfabrik, Vienna) buildings converted into cohousing. Furthermore we can find the rehabilitation of a whole downtown block previously sentenced to demolition (Dreieck, Zürich). The Grote Pyr (Fig.1), monumental school building is used as service, work and living space. It was occupied by inhabitants and artists from the neighborhood, trying to offer something to the community in the Zeeheldenkwartier district in Hague.

Fig. 1 Grote Pyr Co-Housing from outside, Hague - photo by Theisler, K

This example shows, that converting educational buildings into cohousing is one of the most interesting, in the aspect of urban development. Furthermore, the public spaces around an educational building are suitable to develop the neighborhood interaction (Franqueira).

DOCONF2019 / Budapest / urb.bme.hu

3.2 Collective reuse of educational buildings within a mass housing neighborhood The aim of the study is to understand the advantages and possibilities of collective reuse in post-socialist areas.

The existing examples show that these types of developments can also assist in the continuous use and renovation of the post-WWII buildings and public spaces of post-socialist cities. Based on the introductory part, the following analysis presents the collective reuse of an educational building within a mass housing neighborhood.

Collective reuse in the mass housing neighborhood is really special. To the best of our knowledge, there are no examples in the CEE countries. But we can find more projects in Berlin, some are realized and more in the planning phase. The explanation for this phenomenon may be, that the post-socialist heritage was handled with the open-minded values of western culture.

Fig. 2 Aerial view of the block of Werkpalast Cohousing – source: Google, 2019

In the post-socialist Lichtenberg district is more collective reuse projects in a mass housing neighborhood.

Wilma is a community garden surrounded by prefabricated building (from the 1970s), that have been collective reused for cohousing (in 2012). The case study, Werkpalast Cohousing (Fig.2) is a revitalization of a prefabricated educational building and its surrounding garden. (Bundesministerium für F, S, F, J)

35

/DOCONF2019////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 4 Case study of Werkpalast Cohousing, Berlin 4.1 General information The main goals of this development were: living in a co-op, ecological building to a very low energy-use standard and the urban interaction. The Werkpalast CoHousing project is located at the south side of Berlin's Lichtenberg district at the edge of a post-socialist residential area. The block consists of two mass housing blocks and two historic style buildings, surrounding a 6000 m2 garden. (Fig.3)

4.2 Collective reuse of neighborhood in Werkpalast This project is a special reactivation and individualization of mass housing neighborhood, using new functions and existing resources. The habitants from the neighborhood and the whole district can use different open places belonging to the property. There are regular events in the garden and the club announced on the internet and are open to the public. The Werkpalast community organizes different kinds of cultural events: musical, educational, artistic, etc. The biggest happening in the neighborhood is the Summer festival in Werkpalast (Fig.5.)

Fig. 3 Aerial view of Werkpalast CoHousing and the community garden – source: Google, 2019

The complex was built in 1976 and had been abandoned since 2001. In 2006 a small group from the local community decided to stop the decay of the old nursery school to turn it into a modern community home.

Plans of the refurbishment were created with the future tenants as a participative design method. A total of 18 flats, ranging from 30 to 190 square meters, and 3 common areas were ready to move in by March 2010.

(Fig.4) Amongs the common spaces, the 70 square meter workshop area and the huge garden with plenty of green places are open to the public. (Simons)

Fig. 4 Street view of the former nursery school, Lichtenberg in Berlin – source: Google Street View, 2006

36

Fig. 5 Poster of 2018’s Summer festival in Werkpalast – source: https://sites.google.com/site/selbstbauwebsite/

Besides the use of different type of places, Table 1 summarizes the benefits of this project in the view of sustainability in different urban scales.

Werkpalast Cohousing is a new type of neighborhoodoriented development. The recycling of former GDR (East Germany) prefabricated construction was one of the central theme of the design. Additional to these, goals were: creating a very low energy use building and healthy green spaces.

Facing Post-Socialist Urban Heritage

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Affordability and diverse living typologies specifically complement the lacking in the neighborhood. This helps to diversify the conventional mono-structure of inhabitants and uses. Werpalast CoHousing makes a mix of living, working and recreational spaces in the area.

The participatory design process generates the inhabitants to act proactively with the developments of the area. Diverse community-shared spaces are offered, green and open spaces are improved, connections and interactions are fostered. (Ediner, Ring)

Building Neighborhood District

sharing environment eco-design

sharing economy affordability

sharing social goods participatory design

reuse

living typology mix mixed-use

shared places

open green places

5 Opportunities for further research Further analysis could cover the examination of the environment that gave place to this development, including the behavior of local councils towards the communities' plans either in a supporting or an interfering way. Furthermore, it is essential to expound the operating model of these cooperative housing projects established after the reconstructions, namely what the method is to live sustainably in the long run in these homes constructed in the community.

Learning the features of well-functioning projects could help us to acquire existing practices -integrating built mass housing heritage into collective developmentsand establish the cohousing model in Central and Eastern Europe.

sharing events

Table 1: The used methods in Werkpalast CoHousing in the view of sustainability in different urban scales– source: own editing

4 General benefits of collective reuse Our study suggests that collective reuse have more positive impact than adaptive reuse on the building, the neighborhood and through this on the whole district. So these developments helps the interaction in a small and a large scale as well.

As a summary, Table 2 compare the advantages of adaptive and collective reuse in different urban scales.

Besides revitalization of prefabricated buildings, collective reuse reactivate mass housing neighborhood and also encourage citizens to act so. These communities organize communal programs, and they teach others to participate in operating and developing their cities.

Building

adaptive reuse of mass housing Renovation and maintenance Useful rehabilitation

also collective reuse of mass housing Building is looked by inhabitants constantly Creative usage of spaces and structure

Neighborhood

Increases property prices Sustains current standards

Involve surroundings into activities Improves social life around

More residents in the districts Expand social network Have valuable building and open spaces

Positive example for society Improves other reuse developments Urban interactions

District

Table 2: The advantages of adaptive and collective reuse of mass housing in different urban scales – source: Babos, A. - own editing

DOCONF2019 / Budapest / urb.bme.hu

References Babos, A., Collective reuse – CoHousing developments in the service of preservation the built heritage, in: Tamás Molnár. Places and Technologies 2019: The 6. th International Academic Conference on Places and Technologies, 2019, pp. 117-123.

Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend: Wohnen für (Mehr)Generationen Gemeinschaft stärken – Quartier beleben, 2012, pp. 8-10.

Bunnell, G., Zaitzevsky, C., Built to Last: A Handbook on Recycling Old Buildings". Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology. 1979.

Eidner, F., Ring, K., Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions, JOVIS, 2013, pp 20-84.

Franqueira, T., Service design and urban communities, online paper, 2017. pp 4-8.

Marckmann, B., Gram-Hanssen, K., and Christiensen, T.H:Sustainable Living and Co-Housing: Evidence from a Case Study of EcoVillages. Built Environment, vol 38, 2013pp. 114-116 id 22: Institute for Creative Sustainability: experimentcity: CoHousing Cultures - Handbook for self-organized, community-oriented and sustainable housing, JOVIS, 2012, pp. 6-17 LaFond, M., Tsvetkova, L., (id 22: Institute for Creative Sustainability) :CoHousing Inclusive, Jovis, 2017 pp. 23-80.

Ring, K., Urban Living - Strategies for the Future, JOVIS, 2015, pp.

100-183 Simons, K., Gebäude im Wandel - Die Platte wird Palast, in: Berliner Mieterverein, Online Magazine, 2009

37