Research Thesis by Dhwani Modi

LIVE

WORK

LIVE-WORK TYPOLOGY IN AN URBAN CONTEXT: A CASE OF AHMEDABAD CITY

Dhw an i Raj e sh re e S u n i l G u i d ed b y Prof. Rajiv Kadam

Acknowledgement So many scores of persons helped me with this journey, wittingly and unwittingly, that I shall never fully be able to acknowledge the appreciation I owe and feel. Most of all I am grateful to my parents for their patience, trust, and sacrifices for educating me and preparing me for my future. This thesis would not have been possible without you Ma and I cannot thank you enough for your constant moral support and efforts to de-stress me every time during the submissions. I would like to thank Professor Rajiv Kadam for his time, valuable guidance, cooperation and for helping me clarify the vague ideas in my mind into something meaningful. Special thanks to Viral Mehta, Priya, and Parshva for unwavering friendship and memories to last a lifetime. The thesis would not have been possible without all the residents who cooperated with me and allowed me to document their houses. Big thanks to all the CEPT faculties for playing an important role in shaping our way of thinking and School of Architecture for its opportunity.

Ta b l e o f c o n t e n t s 0. I N T R O D U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Re sea rc h p roposal

A B O U T L I V E - W O R K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1

What is live - wo rk Def initions Evolution of l i ve- wo rk Histor y of wo rk ho mes Live-wor k in Indi a n co ntex t Types of live- wo rk Sig nif icance o f l i ve- wo rk

L I V E - W O R K I N A H M E D A B A D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Evolution of Ho us i ng i n A hmeda ba d Traditional fo rm o f l i ve- wo rk For ms of hous i ng i n A hmeda ba d Living and wo rk i ng i n the ci ty

C A S E S T U D I E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Focus of stu d y

M ethod of ana l ys i s

Selection cri teri a C ase Studies Apar tment

Row Ho us e

Tenam ent

I N F E R E N C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

End note

B ibliog raphy . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1

Image citati o ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2

â&#x20AC;&#x153; H o m e i s wh e re the work i s.â&#x20AC;? -Francis Hollis

Introduction “Workers and residents together are able to produce more than the sum of two parts.” (Jacobs) Buildings that combine residential and commercial functions exist throughout history across the world. Live/Work building typology exists in all countries and cultures. Working and dwelling are the two of the fundamental urban functions and often people combine them for various reasons. They are significant because they provide social, economic and environmental sustainability. Two important features of this building type are adaptability and flexibility. The idea of sharing is the main point of the Live-work. Livework is a traditional form of mixed-use development which has become a recent trend due to revitalization. (Kelleher) Workhomes provides a diversity of uses to urban neighborhoods which can be flexible over time. This helps in making neighborhoods busier and more productive which in turn makes them livelier and safer. Workhomes were nearly common all over the world until the 17th century. People lived in self-sufficient and self-reproducing communities where living and working was closely interwoven. After the industrial revolution and urbanization industry and trade were separated from homes. With the advancement of technology, the workhomes are gaining prominent significance and interest in today’s society. “While the Industrial Revolution separated the workplace from the home, information age has reconnected them.” (Dietsch) The study originated from the perception that Indian cities are undergoing a phenomenon of intense commercialization and how people are adapting to live and working in the same premises. Though live/work type has positive as well as negative impacts, it responds differently to various forms of live/ work developments. Although the presence and phenomenon of mix used buildings is found in all the Indian cities, it is very strong in Ahmedabad due to the socio-economic character of the larger part of the population, financial pressure due to cost of living, and a huge difference in commercial and residential property value. Ahmedabad has evolved from the forts and trading centers of former times and has a strong tradition of mixed land use patterns. While in the present times with the advancement of technology and increasing commercialization, new forms of live/work types are emerging along with the traditional forms which will provide a wide diversity of live/work typologies to study.

Today’s home-based workforce is primarily accommodated in residences designed particularly for residential functions. Earlier people used to design their house according to their needs and occupation. Whereas today people still work from home but they live and work in the houses that are not designed for both the functions, considering their needs as they live in mass-produced housing. But people still adapt to it and modify as per their requirements. Housing flexibility is usually discussed in contexts such as changing family size, or the ability of a house to allow for the semi-independent dwelling of elderly parents or teenagers. But the accommodation of work in the house occupies a very small part of the literature. This study will help in understanding how people use their houses in hybrid situations of work and dwelling.

NEED FOR STUDY In mass-produced housing, people tend to do physical changes and modifications in the existing units to meet their own requirements. People combine live/work for many reasons. Sometimes people live and work in inappropriate buildings but it still continues in the shadows despite the fact that it is an increasingly popular practice involving ‘proper work’. Some housing types are able to handle this change better while some don’t. Analyzing different forms of live/work typologies will help to understand how mass-produced houses should be designed considering this aspect of change.

RESEARCH QUESTION How contemporary dwellings provides an architectural arrangement that allows the units to serve each of those spaces for living and working in differing yet appropriate ways.

AIM The study aims to understand how the spaces are redefined to convert single dwelling function into live/work for different contemporary dwelling types. This study will further also present some attributes that can be considered while designing different dwelling typologies with predetermined changes for live/work.

OBJECTIVES Identify the range of live/work typologies existing in the city. Understand the factors such as location, economic and social reasons for a change. Study the adaptations and negotiations made by people for living and working. Understand the relation between the commercial and residential and how they work together.

S C O P E A N D L I M I TAT I O N S Here the case studies will be selected on the basis of a wide range of diversity they provide for various forms of live/work and most importantly they will be used as precedents. Because there is no distinct building or unit live/work type, precedents are shown to further classify the forms of mixed-used units. The present study is restricted to mass-produced contemporary middleincome dwellings of Ahmedabad. Three kinds of dwelling types namely apartments, row houses and tenements are considered for this study. Houses that have been designed for living and have been modified for living and working will be considered for live/work type and not the one that has already been designed for both the functions. Though in informal settlements most homes double as workspaces, they have not been included in this study.

METHOD OF STUDY The study is initiated by discussing the main concept of live/work with secondary sources. Next Ahmedabad is looked at through the lens of housing and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evolution. Later, a brief insight is given into the traditional form of live/work in the city with the help of secondary sources to understand the social, economic and cultural backdrop of the city. Data gathered through the literature review will help to understand different forms of live/work developments in the present context. As Live/work is not a single building or unit type, it is a loosely connected series of strategies combining live and work needs. For this, it is necessary to look at the city at a macro level and identify the different forms of live/work types existing in the present context. Then classify the case studies which can be used as precedents and study them at the micro level. Case studies of various house types will be done to understand how people adapt to living and working together. Activity mapping, plan analysis and informal interviews shall be done to understand the situation of live/work.

Ch. 1 A B O U T L I V E-W O R K WHAT IS LIVE-WORK? The buildings that perform single functions can be categorized as: Buildings for living (Residential) Buildings for working (Schools, offices, hospitals) However, there is another building type that combines dwelling and workplace. Live-Work is a unit that accommodates both living space and workspace on a single plot, in which some residents might work there and it might also accommodate nonresident employees. “Live-work is a land use and building type that combines residence and commerce, yet is at once neither and both.” (Dolan) Live-work is a wide term, that represents various living conditions. The traditional example is the living element and working element within the same unit. Work homes are discrete according to culture and often hidden as a house, shop, workshop or studio and the lives and occupations of the dwellers are very closely entwined that there is no difference between them. Taking different forms according to culture, climate and specific circumstances or purposes, they are often so familiar that they are no longer noticed. There is a long tradition to draw on at both the building and the urban scale. They are inseparably connected to the rise and development of cities and urban society. Live-work typology is gaining relevance today as people across the world are increasingly working from home or they live at their workplace. The separation between life and work is unraveling and becoming more fluid. Developments in infrastructure and digital world allow people to work in different settings. They can work on the dinner table, the sofa, the bed, a café, libraries, rented or shared desk spaces, studios, airports, aircraft, and even places abroad. Thomas Dolan advocates the benefits and importance of live-work schemes in all scales of the post-industrial society. “Ultimately, to stop commuting - and the provision of a built environment that allows for it - is about rediscovering settlement patterns and urban designs that bring life’s disparate functions back together, that shorten or eliminate the separation between the most important parts of our lives, and that result in more livable, life-affirming environments for all.” (Dolan) Chapter 1 About Live-Work

DEFINITIONS “Live-work units are a type of mixed-use development, combining commercial or manufacturing space within the same structure as a residential living space for the business owner. They have similar benefits to mixed-use development and eliminate altogether the need to commute to work. In addition, they can provide affordable work and housing space, meet the needs of special groups such as artists, and serve to incubate new businesses.” (Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington)

“Live/work unit or live/work space means a building or spaces within a building used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.” [or] “Live-work unit means a structure or portion of a structure: (a) That combines a commercial or manufacturing activity allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household; (b) Where the resident owner or employee of the business is responsible for the commercial or manufacturing activity performed; and (c) Where the commercial or manufacturing activity conducted takes place subject to a valid business license associated with the premises.” (American Planning Association)

“Communities today are once again embracing many features of traditional town planning, including allowing a mix of land uses both within a district and within a building. The modern iteration of the live/work option exists in two distinct forms: (1) home occupations and (2) live/work units. A home occupation ordinance is intended to allow modest, low-impact business or commercial uses within a residence in a residential zone. Such uses are subject to significant limitations on the permitted extent of commercial activities, hours of operation, parking, and number of employees to ensure that such uses do not upset the residential character of the neighborhood. In contrast, a live/work ordinance may allow incidental residential uses within commercial, office, or industrial buildings and zones.” (American Planning Association)

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

EVOLUTION OF LIVE-WORK

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The shop/house is probably as old as commerce and the cities itself. â&#x20AC;&#x153; (Dolan) The architectural typology of live-work is not at all a modern aspect. One can trace back the origin of live-work to the stone age. Workhomes have been present in various forms for more than hundreds of years. Since the time people began farming, work was an activity that was connected with living. When settlements started to grow and the food was available in abundant quantity, people began to practice different occupations such as cattle and poultry farming, blacksmith, baker, barber, carpenter, potter etc. These occupations were practiced from home until markets were developed which gave rise to trade and commerce. Large-scale occupations were carried out in the market while small-scale occupations were practiced from home. Home-based work was practiced globally before the industrial revolution. Up until 17th century, functions such as processing food, making clothes, education children took place inside the house. Living next to the work or near to work was a common tradition before the Industrial Revolution. Before the development of industries and machines, people lived in self-sufficient and self-reproducing communities where living and working was inseparable. With the beginning of Industrial Revolution in the 18th century and associated advances in transportation technology, people started commuting to workplaces. Mass production became widespread during the Industrial Revolution, which required the building of factories and that led to the emergence of industrial areas and consequently, the workplaces were shifter away from home. The worker had to travel between home and work every day. They started working in factories operating heavy machines which were separated from residential areas.

Fig 1.1 The stone age Chapter 1 About Live-Work

Fig 1.2 21st century homeoffice 13

This gave rise to zoning of cities that kept dwelling far away from the workplace. Living near industry possessed a risk to health, safety, and welfare and thus zoning laws were formed. Though shop houses and home-based work were still found in lowincome self-sufficient and self-reproducing neighborhoods. The technological advances in the beginning of the 20th century gave advance to new forms of live/work development. With the advent of computers, fax, printers and communication devices occupations such as artists, hairstylist, architects, author, therapist, graphic designer, photographers etc. are practiced from home. The live-work typology is ideal for the current digital age. It is a great opportunity for a distinct range of occupational group to work from their homes as they can get access to a wide range of communication tools and information facilities. Employers may find it more engaging to have their employees working from home, incurring lower operating costs including office space rental. Increasing dependence on the Internet to reach business and personal needs and wants makes the livework typology a suitable alternative for a larger spectrum of occupational groups. Since the 1960s the creative occupations such as artists, designers, and architects have been living and working in livework types extensively. Because of technological inventions, live-work remained no longer limited to creative industries. Frances Hollis who has done immense research in this field states that live-work building typology has substantial contemporary significance and future potential.

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

BRIEF HISTORY OF LIVE-WORK “Live-work building typology exists in every country and culture across the world in both vernacular and elite architectural tradition.” (Hollis)

Live-work has existed for more than hundreds of years and can be found globally from the longhouse in England to the Malaysian shophouse. Workhomes have different forms according to the culture, climate, geographical location and occupation. Until the industrial revolution, the hybrid units were called house, with subsets of longhouse, flexhouse, shophouse, workhome, firehouse, bakehouse etc. Fig 1.3 Medieval pesants longhouse

Around 14th century in rural England, most people lived in the longhouse which was both home and workplace for them. The English Longhouse consisted of an open plan space where farm animals at one end and the farmer and family at the other. This is an example of ‘live-with’. All the daily activities like cooking, cleaning, sleeping, dining, living, looking after the children, taking care of animals, spinning wool, weaving clothes took place in this single long space.

Fig 1.4 Spatial reation between live-work in Longhouse

Fig 1.5 Weavers’ workhomes, Sclater St, Spitalfields, London c. 1900

Fig 1.6 Weaver’s workhome London c. 1724

In 17th and 18th century in England silk-weavers and watchmakers lived in a house that had workshop spaces with large windows that provided natural light necessary for their work. This type of workhome was called a ‘top-shop’.

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

Shophouses have been present in Asia for at least thousands of years. Though they are not represented by a single type, they had a strong relationship with the streets where the family live above or behind the shops.

Fig 1.7 Machiya house Japan

The shophouse typology called ‘machiya’ was common in Japan, where small shop-owners along the street slowly extended their buildings backward eventually, they formed narrow, deep shophouses. The width of the buildings was narrow, but they were built in a variety of sizes. The townhouse typology was found in planned towns and cities—Jyokamachi (Castle-city), Shukubamachi (Inn-town), Zaigomachi (Rural-town), and so on—after the Edo period. The plots along the streets were divided based on specific widths so that shophouses could be formed. The standard width was 5.4 meters and sometimes double that size.

Fig 1.8 Shophouses of Malayasia

The Malaysian shophouses had flexible plan organizations where the shop was always open to the street, the kitchen was behind the shop while the living and sleeping space was behind the shop or upstairs.

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

Fig 1.9 View of Oudewater, Painting by Willem Koekkoek

In the 17th century, the urban shophouse in Northern Europe had timber frame construction where family life and productive work was strongly intertwined. This originated from the rural houses where people maintained a kitchen garden and animals even after moving to the city.

Fig 1.10 Tube house of Vietnam

Fig 1.11 Tube house of Vietnam

The Vietnamese Tube house is an example of ‘live-adjacent’ proximity type, where work was located on the ground floor with a direct connection to the street while the family lived above the shops.

“In order to understand how we may design for this working practice today it might be useful to learn something from this old building type’s history.”(Hollis)

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

LIVE-WORK IN INDIAN CONTEXT The shophouses have been present in India in every old city which is probably as old as commerce. Many shophouses types were originally variations of dwelling types. Shophouses that required pedestrian traffic such as retail were on the busy streets while the shophouse that includes workshops of the craftsman was on the back streets and the wholesale shophouses were on the main streets on the edge of the city. The shophouses are different in different cities which developed according to its context and the kind of business being housed.

Fig 1.12 Shopshouses on streets of Calcutta 1881

Fig 1.13 Chandni chowk shophouses

Fig 1.14 Shophouses in Null Bazar Bombay 18

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

In India, since centuries lots of communities have been associated with different occupations besides agriculture. Some small-scale occupations need outdoor space while some need covered and indoor spaces and thus some become the part od house itself. These home-based work become a part of the house where the whole family follows the same occupation through generations. Some of these occupations carry the cultural significance of that region and the whole community is engaged in that vocation. The house form is also influenced by the occupation and culture. The craftworkers and artisans built their houses according to their needs. Here, work is not a separate entity but a part of their house, where living and working go hand in hand. Some of the examples are potterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s village in Karnataka, Gujarat, Assam, bangle makers in Hyderabad, patola makers (Salvi community) in Patan. Fig 1.15 Potters colony Gujarat

The Salvi community in Patan have been associated with silk weaving where the entire family shares a common house and workplace. The art of patola weaving has been passed through generations and the whole family was involved in the process of making. The houseboats of Kashmir are a great example of living and working together. The Hanji fishermen community who owns houseboats, live and work in the boats itself.

Fig 1.16 Houseboats of Kashmir

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

Fig 1.17 Typical plan of houses of Salvi community

LIVE-WORK PROXIMITY TYPES In the book ‘Live-Work Planning and Design: Zero-Commute Housing’, Thomas Dolan has categorized workhomes into three types according to the proximity between live-work. It describes the degree of spatial separation of living and working that is, ‘live-with’, ‘live-adjacent’, and ‘live-nearby’. LIVE-WITH Here dwelling and work functions are contained within a single large space with a single entrance. According to Thomas Dolan, “a live/with unit is typically a single space, including a kitchen located below a mezzanine/ sleeping space, which looks out over a large contiguous working space.” Generally, it has an open plan where living and working are interwoven with each other having no physical separation. This kind of an arrangement provides the flexibility and the fewest interior partitions which allow the user to adapt it to many different layouts.

Fig 1.18 Live-with type

LIVE-NEAR In live-near type dwelling is in a separate, adjacent compartment to a workplace and may have a separate entrance. Live-Near also called as live-adjacent meets the needs of those who feel that the proximity afforded by live/work is important, but who would nevertheless like some separation between living and working spaces. There is the single divider between both and sometimes has a separate entrance. The workspace is generally separated by a wall or a floor. Traditional houses of the old city are a great example of this type.

Fig 1.19 Live near type

L I V E-N EA R BY Here dwelling is detached and at a small distance from a workplace, having a single entrance or two separate entrances. Generally, a short walk separates the living and the workspace– across a courtyard, to a converted garage or other accessory structure, or up or down an exterior staircase, for example. While this type may initially appear to be simply mixed-use, classification as live/work may permit its existence in places where a residential or a commercial space alone might not be permitted. 20

Fig 1.20 Live nearby type Chapter 1 About Live-Work

SIGNIFICANCE OF LIVE-WORK The traditional forms of live/work types maintained economic and social relationships that were connected to the family life itself. Even though the building houses families whose members work elsewhere, along with employees of shops who live elsewhere, the street may bring them all together. There is a strong relationship between the traditional, family house and the building with independent apartments and shops. The Continuum exists because people new pair buildings in flexible ways ranging from their own use of a shop to the rental of a shop to the rental of dwelling space to maximize economic opportunity. This results in myriad architectural relationships between the dwelling and shop or workplace. In a way, it can be said that live-work units are used day and night. Due to this, the residential areas are not empty during the day when people are working, and commercial-industrial areas they are not empty at night when people are at home. As emphasized by Jane Jacobs, this 24-hour inhabitation makes local neighborhoods busier, and therefore livelier and safer, as watched streets are safe streets. Some people wish to work from home rather than from a separate commercial unit designed for work. The work could be the main income earner for a person or family or could be a part-time way of earning extra income perhaps started as a hobby. While retail buildings need residential density nearby and exposure on streets with pedestrians which the residential premises can fulfill. Even Christopher Alexander in A Pattern Language has highlighted upon the idea of mixed use buildings and streets. “. . . . Prohibit large concetrations of work without family life around them. Prohitbit large concentrations of family life, without workplaces around them.” (Alexander) In the 9th pattern The scattered work he talks about how the segregation of living and working leads to a dead neighborhood. “Some workplaces are in homes; there are many opportunities for people to work from their homes or to take work home.” Jane Jacobs and Alexander Christopher both have mentioned the importance of hybridity that workhomes provide on a unit as well as city level.

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

FLEXIBILITY AND ADAPTABILITY IN LIVE-WORK “Perhaps one of the most attractive features of the live/work model is its adaptability to a variety of settings and land use plans.” (Urban Land, February 1999, p.128)

As described in the book, How building learn by Stewart Brand, Flexibility and adaptability are the two key aspects of live-work. The terms “adaptability” and “flexibility” may refer to the ability of a building to incorporate different uses, or to take on different functions over time without a change in its configuration, or to be able to change its physical configuration with the use of movable walls in order to assume different functions, or to easily make renovations, to help the buildings adapt to new demands. Live-work provides flexibility of space and time. The functions carried out during the day in a particular space are replaced with other functions at night which provides efficient use of space. The flexibility involved in home-based work reduces stress on the individual and the family. Howard Davis in his book Living Over the Store has explained two kinds of flexibility are found in different live-work arrangements: cyclical and lineal. In Cyclical flexibility, spaces take on different functions at different times, over regular cycles that happen a daily, weekly or repetitive basis. While in lineal flexibility, some spaces are changed permanently with renovations, additions, or new construction. This kind of flexibility adapted by the users mainly depends upon the scale of the house and the occupation of the user.

Fig 1.21 Diagrams showing pattern of use in the house 22

Chapter 1 About Live-Work

Ch. 2 L I V E-W O R K I N A H M E DA B A D

AHMEDABAD

➤

Ahmedabad

Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO Image Landsat / Copernicus Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO

Ahmedabad which is the largest city of Gujarat State is situated about 350 miles North of Bombay, in Western India. Located at latitude 2304’ North, longitude 72*38’ East, it is at an altitude of 52m above the sea level. There are no physical features defining its boundary, but Gandhinagar, the state capital, is in the North and few small towns and villages in the Eastern, Southern and Western periphery.

900 mi

Image Landsat / Copernicus

Fig 2.1 Location of Ahmedabad

EVOLUTION OF HOUSING Ahmedabad city was founded by king Ahmed Shah in 1411 AD on the banks of river Sabarmati on the ancient site of Ashaval and Karnavati. The royal palace, fort wall enclosing the city, the main street connecting the palace to the main gate of the fort wall and a mosque were the initial structures of the city. It was believed that the city was planned based on Hindu canons, taking inspiration from existing cities like Patan, which was the earlier seat of Ahmed Shah before Ahmedabad. The city had 13 roads and the population was distributed according to their caste and occupation. The rich merchants and jewelers occupied the central part of the city while the working class was situated around the sub-centers according to their occupation. The lower class settled in the north while the upper class was allotted the south of Ahmedabad. In the neighborhood of upper class, it was developed as mostly residential zones whereas in the neighborhood of the lower class it was developed as mixed use.

Chapter 2 Live-Work in Ahmedabad

Fig 2.2 Growth of Ahmedabad city

The introduction of the textile industry in the early 1930s resulted in a 90% increase in the population of the city during that decade, due to the employment opportunity. The industrial development and significant growth of commercial areas in the city created a need for a major street parallel to the existing one. Land acquisition and growing congestion within the fort wall caused a shift in residential development. Construction of 5 bridges on the Sabarmati river leads to the development on the other side of the river as well. Increase in population created a heavy demand for new housing accommodation. The period between 1930 and 1960 was characterized by the growth of these settlements and â&#x20AC;&#x153;chawlsâ&#x20AC;?, a privately developed settlement of rows of rooms with no access to any utilities. In 1950â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bombay Housing Authority constructed low cost subsidized dwellings for lower income class which is still continued by Gujarat Housing Board. People from the highincome group started moving to the suburbs across the river. The initial housing was in the form of detached and semi-detached tenement houses. Later on, many government housing schemes were constructed for all income levels around the western part of City. New educational institutes came up which gave rise to staff housing in the forms of individual bungalows, and apartments. The mass housing became popular in the 1960s. High demand for housing created pressure on land values which gave birth to new kinds of housing in the form of flats and apartments.

Chapter 2 Live-Work in Ahmedabad

TRADITIONAL

FORM

LIVE-WORK

AHMEDABAD The city of Ahmedabad was founded in 1411 AD which developed and prospered into a commercial and industrial center as merchants, weavers and skilled craftsmen came and settled here. As explained explicitly by Jigna Desai in the book Shophouse/ townhouse: Asian Perspectives, there were several scales of markets inside and outside the city of which the markets in the internal streets were ‘shophouses’. There were four such important markets called ‘kandoi ol’(sweets) , ‘mochi ol’(shoes and leather products), ‘channla ol’(ornaments and accessories for women), ‘chudi ol’(bangles made of gold and silver)- in each of these street were home to communities making and selling such products.

Fig 2.3 Pol house plan(narrow)

The shophouses had two sizes in terms of the width of the bays; the narrow bay shophouse had a width of around 2.5 meters which had a staircase leading to the residential area above at the back of the house, the broad bay shophouse had a width of around 3.5 meters and mostly had a separate entrance for the house from the street leading to the staircase. These houses had shops on the ground floor with storage/ workspace at the back, or in some cases, on a mezzanine floor. The narrow bay and broad bay house worked differently. Both kinds of shophouses had shops on the ground level and in some cases, there was a workshop at the back or on the first floor, while on the upper floor caretaker of the shops used to live. In the narrow bay houses, there was a staircase that leads to the upper floor at the back, through shop/workshop area, while in most of the broad bay houses there was a staircase directly at the front opening on the street, giving an access directly to the houses from the street. This pattern efficiently gives all shops a similar frontage size.

Fig 2.4 Pol house plan(broad) Chapter 2 Live-Work in Ahmedabad

The shophouses were built with the same material and construction process and thus had the same characteristics as the houses. However, the alterations due to the change of use are important to observe. Apart from the functional changes, which affect the hierarchical structure of the house, the focal point of the house, the court was replaced by deep shop/workshop areas. The functions of the court related to daily domestic activities are carried out in the street, during the hours when the shops are closed. 25

The streets transform from being a domestic street with the inhabitants carrying out their routine activities during the morning to a busy market street once the shops open late in the morning. The faรงade, however, retains its function as the threshold/buffer between the inside and the outside. Though the ground floor threshold changes, the upper-level elements and their interaction with the street are retained owing to the public nature of their functions, depth, and level of openness. In conclusion, the constants from the house form are the materials, its structure, and the related process of construction as well as the scale and form of the house in relation to the street. In essence, the aspects that are retained from the traditional form in the house are human scale/interrelationships and the symbolic idioms as understood by the people, maintaining a homogenous environment in the city with which its citizens could identify and belong to.

Fig 2.5 Ghanchi ni pol

Fig 2.6 Vaghan pol

After independence, the city started sprawling and the old city still remains the core. Over time the inner city has been subject to a continuous remodeling of its parts. The scales at which these internal changes occur are diverse but still, the city continues to have its hybrid character. Currently, the old city is undergoing a phenomenon of intense commercialization. The city still preserves its residential-commercial character. The public realm in the city by and large commercial remains undoubtedly representational while the residential fabric remains introverted.

Chapter 2 Live-Work in Ahmedabad

FORMS OF HOUSING IN AHMEDABAD The three major contemporary house forms found in Ahmedabad are: A PA R T M E N T Increase in land prices in the urban areas gave rise to the apartments, which is an idea borrowed from western concepts. Apartments became the choice of housing for those who wanted to live in proximity to the city. There are two types of apartment housing, low-rise, and multi-story apartments. Low-rise apartments are a form of housing built by both public sector agencies as well as private developers for all classes of the population. High-rise housing has become a popular housing type for middle income and high-income sections. The apartments on the same floor share common services like lifts, stairwell and the lobby between the houses. These houses have open spaces on the outer edge of the built structures which are balconies as their private space. The outer common space plays an important role for interaction for residents in apartments.

ROW HOUSE Row housing was evolved from the concept of low-rise high-density form which preserves common qualities of traditional housing in pols. Row housing development for the middle-income group by private agencies mostly happened along the edge of the city in the 1970s where the pressure on land was not high. Major characteristics that made row houses famous were increased density and preservation of the characteristics of the single-family house. People choose to live in row house as it offers social intimacy and a sense of private entity as against flats and it offers a chance to be on the ground. Typically row houses are 2 storey and it offers provisions for further extensions.

TENEMENT Tenement type of housing developments started coming up in Ahmedabad across the river Sabarmati after the year 1930. Tenement dwelling types are being built up by private estate developers for upper as well as the middleclass section of urban society. Major characteristics that made this house type popular were better light and ventilation, availability of personal open space, the possibility of further expansion horizontally as well as vertically. Though, high density is not attainable with this dwelling type. Chapter 2 Live-Work in Ahmedabad

LIVING AND WORKING IN THE CITY In Ahmedabad mixed-use building has traditionally been an excepted and prevalent phenomenon. The houses in the old city of Ahmedabad designed as shophouses are a great example of mixed-use buildings. Contemporary urban planning, which had promoted zoning concepts and segregates zones of residential and commercial activities is in stark contrasts to the mixed and multiple uses of the space in traditional settlements. Though contemporary housing was not designed for living and working, people still started adapting to it by modifying it as per their requirements. There is a much stronger need to alter the surroundings in mass housing projects, compared to individual houses exclusively designed for a family. This is more prominent in LIG and MIG residential areas showing the importance of home-based work and shophouses. People find it feasible as they can bring in income working at home, on a flexible schedule, while also taking care of the family and performing other domestic chores. This way they get the financial independence which is positive. Also a little or no initial investment is required to engage in the work. Some of the factors that encourage live-work are: • Socioeconomic character of the majority of the population • economic pressure due to the high cost of living • high cost of property value • high variation in commercial and residential value • Convenience in business • nearness to residence • low operating costs of additional income to the family • Limitations of formal and informal commercial centers in terms of high cost of space acquisition and operation • expected rate of return

Chapter 2 Live-Work in Ahmedabad

Ch. 3 CASE STUDIES FOCUS OF STUDY “Contemporary home-based workers do not live and work in purpose designed premises. Instead, they try to squeeze work into their home..... Who are they? What work they do? Whom do they work for? How do they organize the work? How do they combine live and work spatially? What are the houses they inhabit like? How can we design better in mass-produced houses to meet their need?” (Hollis) In order to understand these, different case studies have been selected and analyzed through various tools. They include “dual-use spaces”, “dedicated living space” and “dedicated workspace” in different proportions. Here 6 contemporary houses that combine dwelling and workplace are analyzed that accommodates a wide range of different occupations. To cover the range of case studies, here they have been divided according to the type of work the dweller does. • H O M E B A S E D W O R K

Home-based work or home occupation involves labor-intensive work such as textile, garment, footwear, laundry, as well as skilled artisan production such as furniture, clothing, jewelry, food items. household items etc. In India, amongst the self-employed homebased workers, 67% are women.

• S H O P H O U S E

A unit that combines a shop and dwelling is considered as a shophouse. In 2 or more storey units shop is on the ground floor the family lives on the upper floor. While in single storey unit the shop is in the front area of the house and the rest of the spaces are used for living by the family.

• H O M E O F F I C E / S T U D I O H O U S E

Chapter 3 Case Studies

As the name suggests it is a unit that includes dwelling and office or a studio which is inhabited by professionals working from home. Generally, it includes studio of an artist, designer, photographer or office of a lawyer, architect or a clinic etc. 29

A N A LY S I S To understand the workhomes, the research takes cues from the two books, Living over the store by Howard Davis and Beyond Live/work by Frances Hollis. The following 7 aspects of analysis will be used to understand how live/work works together.

1. C H A N G E S A N D A D A P TAT I O N S Adaptations: the act of adjusting one thing to other As dwellers inhabit their house they adjust, modify or change the parameters of the house in order to accommodate their own requirements and priorities. The changes that the house reflects are dwellerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adaptation to the house. It is the changed situation that gives rise to the need of adapting. Adaptations become necessary only when certain conditions have changed and started affecting the performance of certain tasks. Here in live-work condition, when dwellers insert work in their dwelling, they make adaptations. Within rehabilitation units, if the unit is not satisfactory, then the adaptations start from the time of occupation itself and lasts till one modifies it to get comfortable. How does it differ from the original typology? What are the modifications to the unit? Here adaptations can be categorized into two: Physcical change Functional change The physical changes that occur are basically of two types: Alteration: Changes or improvement made within the structure. Addition: Extension made to the house which results in a physical increase in the size.

2. S PAT I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P The Spatial Relationship in Architecture specifies how a certain space is positioned in relation to another given space. In these dual-use houses, there is a question of the relationship between live and work. Different dwelling types and work types have a different relationship between the dwelling and the workplace. 30

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Live-work can exist on different floors or on the same level or sometimes they share the same place where it overlaps. Due to the addition of workplace in the house, the spatial relationship between other spaces such as living and service spaces also changes which also becomes an important part of the analysis.

3. S E PA R AT I O N It is important to know the degree of separation between living and working. The author of the book “BEYOND LIVE/WORK”, Francis Hollis has identified three basic degrees of separation: (explained in chapter 1 under live-work proximity types) No separation (live-with), Some separation (live-near) and Total separation (live-nearby). Along with this the elements that separated both the functions also plays a major role while designing for live-work.

4. P R I VA C Y A N D W O R K A C C E S S PAT T E R N Live-work houses involve interactions with the people be it employees, people with appointments or passing trade. This important issue is ignored but it has major implications on the functioning of a house. It is important to understand the hierarchy of privacy, where which space is open for customers or employees and which space is only for the family. The work access pattern describes how the customer or an employee enters the workspace. It also helps in defining the level of privacy.

5. F L E X I B I L I T Y A N D PAT T E R N O F U S E The term flexibility is defined as- a particular character if space, which allows the user to change, alter, expand, and personalize it, as and when needed. Regardless of the buildings people inhabit, different people use space in distinct ways. In small dwellings workers have common spaces in their work home for both their living and working. This space provides flexibility for both the functions. While in bigger houses depending upon the scale of work, homeworkers have a specific space for work. Thus, flexibility keeps on varying. There is a “dual use space”, “dedicated living space” and “dedicated workspace”. Chapter 3 Case Studies

Howard Davis has divided the flexibility into two kinds: Cyclic and lineal (mentioned in detail in chapter 1) which is used here. To understand the flexibility, the pattern of use of various spaces is analyzed during daytime and at night.

6. L I G H T A N D V E N T I L AT I O N Light and ventilation play a major role in the workspace. Availability of natural light might be extremely important for some work function while might some require artificial light. Also due to the addition of work in the house, the natural light and ventilation sometimes get disturbed.

7 . V I S I B I LT I Y A N D N E I G H B O U R H O O D Some workhomes are deliberately visible, advertising the work of the occupant, and incorporating it into the neighborhood. While some workhomes often have enigmatic exteriors which do not have a connection to the neighborhood. This depends upon the type of work being carried out. In order to understand this aspect, the connection of the workspace with the street is shown.

C O R R E L AT I O N B E T W E E N A S P E C T S

Chapter 3 Case Studies

SELECTION OF CASE STUDIES Having gone to and fro, to various residential neighborhood and different housing types, it was decided to study three major housing types. Various dwelling typologies have different design strategies and decisions made by the dweller. Three major contemporary house forms studied in this thesis (Explained in chapter 2) are: Apartment Row house Tenement Various housing societies where live/work was allowed and a common sight were shortlisted and 6 appropriate case studies were selected in order to cover different occupations and housing types.

FORMS OF WORKHOMES

HOME BASED WORK

SHOPHOUSE

HOUSEOFFICE

• APARTMENT • ROW HOUSE

• APARTMENT

• APARTMENT • ROW HOUSE • TENAMENT

The following are the six case studies under each dwelling type: 3.1 Apar tm ent 3. 1. 1 Amee Apartment

Laundry

3. 1. 2 Mangalmurti Apartment

Shop

3. 1. 3 Green Ville

Design Office

3.2 Row h ou se 3. 2. 1 Sunset Row House

Beauty Parlour

3. 2. 2 Sunset Row House

LIC Agent Office

3.3 Te ne m ent 3. 3. 1 Rangjyot Society Chapter 3 Case Studies

Clinic

Amee Apartment Rangjyot Society

Mangalmurti Apartment

Sunset Row House

Green Ville

Fig 3.1 Location of case studies 34

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.1 Location of the house

3.1 APARTMENT HOME BASED WORK 3. 1. 1 A M E E A PA R T M E N T Year: 1992 Area: 46.5 sqm. Location: Near Telephone Exchange, Naranpura The apartment was built by Gujarat Housing Board under MIG (Middle Income Group) Housing scheme.

STREET Fig 3.1.2 Cluster Plan of the house

HOUSE INTRODUCTION The house is on the ground floor. It is owned by Rajubhai Vasita. There are 7 members in the family out of which only 4 members currently live in the house. The owner lives with his wife, daughter, and son while his 3 daughters are married. The owner and his wife iron clothes at home. Chapter 3 Case Studies

Original plan

STREET

Office (sold)

Office (rent)

Modified plan

Fig 3.1.3 Plan showing modifications in the house 36

Chapter 3 Case Studies

C H A N G E S A N D A D A P TAT I O N S Nature of change: Physical changes (additions) Many additions are done to the house. The house has been extended to almost double its size. The front part of the house is extended in which the part adjacent to the living room is used by the owner for work. The rest of the extended space is divided into 2 parts and used as an office out of one which is given on rent while the other is sold by the owner. The rest of the extended part on the side is used as service and storage space. The addition provides an additional income to the family and also a sufficient space for the owner to work. The dwellers have to comprise with the front open space as all the activities that were performed in the front yard have been shifted inside the living spaces. They also get a large area of service and storage space due to the extension.

Fig 3.1.4 Isometric showing showing before and after modifications

Fig 3.1.5 Exterior view of the house showing extensions Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.6 Workspace on the entrance 37

ENTRY 1

ENTRY 2

Original

Office (sold)

Entry for family

Office (Rent)

Modified Work entrance Fig 3.1.7 Spatial realationship before and after modification

LEGEND

The overlapping area shows the planes separation live/work

living space

working

service space

work access pattern

Fig 3.1.8 Relation between live/work 38

Chapter 3 Case Studies

S PAT I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P As the apartment is on the ground floor originally two entrances were provided by the developers. The front entrance is used for work while the side entrance to the living room is used by the family. Due to the addition of shops and work area, the connection of living spaces to the outside has been disturbed. The front passage that has been converted into a work area is the only visual connection of the living room to the main road. While the rest of the space including service space has no connection to the front road. The service spaces are organized on one end while the living spaces on the other . In terms of the relationship between live-work, there is a clear separation between living and working. They never overlap as there is a defined semi-open space for working. The relation between the living space and service space remains the same when work is inserted on the entrance of the house. This works when there are two entrances in the house. S E PA R AT I O N Here walls and the main door acts as a separator between live/work. There is a separate space and a separate door for working. Degree of separation: Some separation(live-near)

P R I VA C Y A N D W O R K A C C E S S PAT T E R N The front semi-open space used for work is public. Customers give and collect their clothes from that space and they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need to enter the house. The living room is visible from the semi-open space so that when the owner is not working and someone comes to give/collect their clothes he or she can see from there. Thus the living room is a little less private. While the other spaces of the house including kitchen and services are the most private spaces of the house. The living room separates the public and private spaces. The two offices in the front that belongs to different owners do not disturb the privacy of the house as the open up on the front and the back wall is shared with the house. STREET Fig 3.1.9 Plan showing level of privacy and work access pattern Chapter 3 Case Studies

public private

Thus the privacy of the house is not disturbed as the work is placed on the entrance and there are separate entrances for both functions. 39

DAY USE

NIGHT USE

Fig 3.1.10 Plan showing the pattern of use of the house

F L E X I B I L I T Y A N D PAT T E R N O F U S E There is a defined space for each activity and a separate space for working. Hence there is no overlap of activities in a space during the day while at night the working space is used for sleeping during summer. The semi-open space is perfectly suitable for both the functions- working during the day and sleeping at night.

LEGEND

work

family

mixed

Thus it follows cyclic flexibility as the semi-open space take on different function at different times.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

L I G H T A N D V E N T I L AT I O N The workspace has a good quality of natural light and ventilation available throughout the day as it is a semi-open space on the front part of the house. Due to the extension made in the house, the light and ventilation are very poor. The living space gets sufficient light and ventilation from the front semi-open space. But the rest of the living and service spaces have no source of natural light. Here the reason for inefficient light and ventilation is the extended offices given to different owners and not due to the insertion of a workplace in the house.

Fig 3.1.11 Plan showing the natural light and ventilation

Fig 3.1.12 Section showing the natural light and ventilation through the workspace

Fig 3.1.13 Quality of light in workspace Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.14 Quality of light in Kitchen 41

live

work

Fig 3.1.15 Diagram showing connection of the workplace with the main street

VISIBILITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD The owner has fixed customers from around the neighborhood. Another advantage the owner gets it that the workspace is located in the front semiopen space which is visible from the main street. Here visibility of the workspace from the main street gives an advantage to the owner. Majority of the houses in this neighborhood have extended their houses to make the living spaces bigger or converted them into shops, workspaces. Shops and home-based work are a common sight in this area.

Fig 3.1.16 Exterior view of the house

INFERENCES Here separate entrances for both the functions are an advantage to live-work as it is able to maintain privacy in the house. The semi-open space used for work is flexible and the functions keep changing during day and night which allows the space to be used at its maximum. The work is inserted in the front semi-open space which allows maximum visibility.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.17 Location of the house

3.1 APARTMENT SHOP HOUSE 3. 1. 2 M A N G A L M U R T I A PA R T M E N T

STREET

Year: 1990 Area: 32 sqm. Location: Near Telephone Exchange, Naranpura The apartment was built by Gujart Housing Board under LIG (Lower Income Group) Housing scheme.

Fig 3.1.18 Cluster Plan of the house

HOUSE INTRODUCTION The house is located on the ground floor. It is owned by Meenaben Shah. There are 4 members in the family, the owner, her husband, and their 2 sons. Meenaben and her husband run a general store. They bought the house in 1991 when it was built and started the shop after 2 years. Chapter 3 Case Studies

STREET

Original plan

STREET

Modified plan

Fig 3.1.19 Plan showing modifications in the house 44

Chapter 3 Case Studies

C H A N G E S A N D A D A P TAT I O N S Nature of change: Physical changes (additions) A lot of additions are done in the house. The front semi-open space of the house is extended and used for multiple functions. While the space adjacent to that facing the street is used as a shop. The right side of the house is extended and used for service space. The entry to the kitchen from the living has been closed and given from the new front space. The new addition provides a sufficient space for the shop and a new multipurpose room which is used as storage as well as for other living activities.

Fig 3.1.20 Isometric showing showing before and after modifications

Fig 3.1.21 The front extended room Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.22 Exterior view showing extensions done in the house 45

Red line shows the profile of extension

Original

Modified

Fig 3.1.23 Spatial realationship before and after modification

The overlapping area shows the planes separating live/work

Fig 3.1.24 Relation between live/work 46

LEGEND

living space

working

service space

mixed use

work access pattern Chapter 3 Case Studies

S PAT I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P Due to the addition of the shop and the front multipurpose space, the connection of the living room and the kitchen to the outside has been disturbed. Though the spatial arrangement living room and service space remain the same, the direct connection between those space is changed as the door is removed and shifted in the front space. The relation between the living space and service space remains the same when work is inserted on the entrance of the house. The multipurpose space used as storage and living activities connects the living and working spaces. In terms of the relationship between live-work, there is a clear separation between living and working. They never overlap as there is a defined semi-open space for working. S E PA R AT I O N Here walls act as a separator between live/work. There is a separate space for both the functions. Degree of separation: Some separation(live near)

P R I VA C Y A N D W O R K A C C E S S PAT T E R N The front space used as a shop is public. Customers buy goods from outside the shop standing on the street. If the owner is not in the shop customer can call him from the front room. So the front multipurpose room becomes semi-private. While the rest of the spaces living room, kitchen and service spaces remains private. But more or less the privacy of the house is not affected due to work.

public STREET

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.25 Plan showing level of privacy and work access pattern

private 47

DAY USE

LEGEND

NIGHT USE

Fig 3.1.26 Plan showing the pattern of use of the house

work

family

mixed

F L E X I B I L I T Y A N D PAT T E R N O F U S E There is a defined space for each activity and a separate space for working. Hence there is no overlap of activities. The front multipurpose room is used for storage(shop) as well as other living activities throughout the day and at night for sleeping. Thus it follows lineal flexibility as the use is changed permanently. Fig 3.1.27 Front multipurpose room

Chapter 3 Case Studies

L I G H T A N D V E N T I L AT I O N The shop gets a good amount of direct sunlight throughout the day. The living room does not get direct light and ventilation due to the extension of the front room. The rest of the service spaces and kitchen gets enough light and ventilation from the side.

Fig 3.1.28 Plan showing the natural light and ventilation

Fig 3.1.29 Section showing the natural light and ventilation through the workspace

Fig 3.1.30 Quality of light in the shop Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.31 Living room 49

live

work

Fig 3.1.32 Diagram showing connection of the workplace with the main street

VISIBILITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

Here a majority of the houses in the neighborhood have extended their houses to make the living spaces bigger or converted them into shops, workspaces. Shops and home-based work are a common sight in this area. People from around the neighborhood buy their groceries from the shop. The facade of the shop clearly demarcates it as a typology of a shop which is visible while passing from the street.

Fig 3.1.33 Exterior view of the house

INFERENCES

The shop is inserted such that the shop, as well as the dwelling both, gets the frontage towards the street. The location of the house on the corner is an advantage for the light and ventilation in the house in spite of the extension. The multipurpose room in the front is shared for both living as well as working activities. The house does not have a proper space for living activities and sleeping in the house, thus the family negotiates between both the activities in the same space.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

➤ N

500 ft

Fig 3.1.34 Location of the house

3.1 APARTMENT HOME OFFICE 3. 1. 3 G R E E N V I L L E Year: 1992 Area: 110 sqm. Location: St. Xaviers College Corner, Navrangpura STREET

The Duplex was built by the Private developer and has 16 flats. An individual unit has two floors and 3 bedrooms.

MAIN STREET

Fig 3.1.35 Cluster Plan of the house

HOUSE INTRODUCTION The house is on the ground and first floor. It is owned by Mr. Sunil Modi. The family consists of 3 members, the owner himself, his wife and their daughter. The owner is a graphic designer and works at home with his wife. The owner bought the house in 2004 with an idea of keeping the office in the house. Chapter 3 Case Studies

DN UP

First Floor

Ground floor

Fig 3.1.36 Base plan 52

Chapter 3 Case Studies

First Floor

Ground floor

Fig 3.1.37 Plan showing modifications in the house

C H A N G E S A N D A D A P TAT I O N S Nature of change: Functional Change The extra guest bedroom on the ground floor has been converted into the office space. Only the furniture layout in that space is changed and no physical changes are made to insert work. There are only 3 members in the house, hence there was one extra bedroom left. Fig 3.1.38 Sitting room

The attached bathroom given in the bedroom has been converted into a store room as there was a lack of space in the office to store stationery. Also, the dining space on the first floor is converted into a sitting space. As that space is near the entrance and one has to pass through that space to reach the office it makes it inconvenient to have a dining space there. So the dining space is compromised and the living room is used to dine.

Fig 3.1.39 Office space Chapter 3 Case Studies

Common entrance

First floor

Ground floor

Fig 3.1.40 Spatial realationship

LEGEND The overlapping area shows the planes separating live/work

living space

working

service space

work access pattern

Fig 3.1.41 Relation between live/work 54

Chapter 3 Case Studies

S PAT I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P The only connection between live and work is the circulation. When someone is in the office, one doesn’t feel part of the house and when in the living spaces one doesn’t even notice that there is an office downstairs. But when someone comes to the office the owner has to chase up and down the stairs to open the door as there a common door for live and work. This is a situation of ‘live-adjacent’ work home as the office is located below the living spaces. As the entrance is common for both the circulation space near the sitting room the spatial relationship has changed between the living room and sitting room. While the spatial relationship between the rest of spaces remains the same as there is no addition made in the house.

S E PA R AT I O N Here walls and slab separate the living and working spaces. There is a separate space for living and working. Degree of separation: Some separation (live-near) P R I VA C Y A N D U S E R A C C E S S PAT T E R N As the access to the workspace passes through the sitting area that has space has no privacy. Even the living room is visible from there which makes it less private. The internal staircase was supposed to be private but due to the office on the ground floor, everyone who visits the office has to access it. The space near the staircase on the first floor is little symmetrical due to which the newcomers gets confused and sometimes enters the bedroom instead of going down through the staircase. As the circulation and the entrance are shared between both the functions the living space has semi-private and the circulation is public.

Ground floor public

First floor Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.42 Plan showing level of privacy and work access pattern

private 55

DAY USE

Ground floor

First floor

NIGHT USE

Ground floor

First floor Fig 3.1.43 Plan showing the pattern of use of the house

F L E X I B I L I T Y A N D PAT T E R N O F U S E There is a separate space for the office thus it follows lineal flexibility as the arrangement of the space is changed into an office space.

LEGEND

work

family

mixed

The circulation space and the sitting space at the entrance is mixed use during the day and after the working hours at night, it is used only by the family. 56

Chapter 3 Case Studies

L I G H T A N D V E N T I L AT I O N The office space gets sufficient light and ventilation throughout the day. As no other changes are done in the house the amount of light and ventilation remains the same in the rest of the house.

Fig 3.1.44 Plan showing the natural light and ventilation

Fig 3.1.45 Section showing the natural light and ventilation through the workspace

Fig 3.1.46 quality of light in the office Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.47 quality of light in the main sitting room 57

live

work Fig 3.1.48 Diagram showing connection of the workplace with the main street

VISIBILITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD Generally, this kind of work is promoted through word of mouth or other mediums. Hence there is no need of advertisements on the facade. Though the office is situated inside the society and not on the main road, there are fixed clients who know about the office.

Fig 3.1.49 Exterior view of the house showing the facade

INFERENCES Here as the work is inserted on the ground floor in the extra room, the spatial relation in the house is not disturbed but as a result, the privacy in the house is not maintained as the circulation and entrance are shared. Also, the work doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need a direct connection to the street thus inserting it at the end of the house is an advantage.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.2.1 Location of the society

3.2 ROW HOUSE HOME OFFICE

3.2.1 SUNSET ROW HOUSE Year: 1985 Area: 60 sqm. Location: Gurukul Road, Memnagar

MAIN STREET

The society consisting of 218 units was built under the low-cost housing scheme.

Fig 3.2.2 Location of the house

HOUSE INTRODUCTION The house is owned by Dhirubhai Modi. The family consists of 3 members, the owner himself, his wife and their daughter. The owner is an Insurance agent and works from home. They came to live in 2001 and extended the house for an extra space for the the office. Chapter 3 Case Studies

Original plan Ground floor

First floor

Modified plan Ground floor Fig 3.2.3 Plan showing modifications in the house 60

First floor 0

Chapter 3 Case Studies

C H A N G E S A N D A D A P TAT I O N S Nature of change: Physical changes (additions) Two extensions are done in the house. The terrace on the first floor has been converted into a room which is used as an office. This addition provides an extra room to the owner for the office. The bedroom on the first floor has also been extended a little making the room bigger. Due to the extension on the terrace, it forms a space between the office and bedroom which is used as storage. There are no changes done on the ground floor.

Fig 3.2 .4 Isometric showing showing before and after modifications

Fig 3.1.5 Extended space used as an office Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.1.6 Exterior view of the house 61

The overlapping area shows the planes separating live/work

First floor

Fig 3.2.8 Relation between live/work

Ground floor Fig 3.2.7 Spatial realtionship before modifications

LEGEND

living space

working

service space

work access pattern

First floor

Ground floor

Fig 3.2.9 Spatial realtionship after modifications 62

Chapter 3 Case Studies

S PAT I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P There is no change in the spatial relationship between the spaces as the workspace has been inserted on the top floor. The services are organized on the back part of the house while the living spaces are in the front part. The relation of the bedroom on the first floor with the outside has been changed as the terrace has been converted into an office. In terms of the relationship between live-work, there is a clear separation between living and working. They never overlap as there is a defined space for working.

S E PA R AT I O N Here walls and the slab acts as a separator between live/work. There is a shared door and circulation for both the functions. Degree of separation: Some separation(live-near)

P R I VA C Y A N D W O R K A C C E S S PAT T E R N The living room is public as the staircase goes through that room. Thus the living room is a little less private. The bedroom on the first floor is semi-private as it visible to the clients when they climb the stairs. Even the storage is public because the clients have to go through that space to enter the office. While the other spaces of the house including kitchen and services are the most private spaces of the house. Ground floor

First floor public

Fig 3.2.10 Plan showing level of privacy and work access pattern Chapter 3 Case Studies

Here the privacy of the house is disturbed as the work is placed on the first floor and there is a shared entrance and circulation.

private 63

DAY USE

Ground floor

First floor

NIGHT USE

LEGEND

Ground floor

work

family

mixed

First floor

Fig 3.2.11 Plan showing the pattern of use of the house

F L E X I B I L I T Y A N D PAT T E R N O F U S E There is a separate space for the office thus it follows lineal flexibility as the use of the space is changed into an office space. The circulation space is mixed use during the day and after the working hours at night, it is used only by the family. 64

Chapter 3 Case Studies

First floor

Ground floor

Fig 3.2.12 Plan showing the natural light and ventilation

Fig 3.2.13 Section showing the natural light and ventilation through the workspace

Fig 3.2.14 quality of light in the office Chapter 3 Case Studies

live

work

Fig 3.2.15 Diagram showing connection of the workplace with the main street

Fig 3.2.16 Exterior view of the house

INFERENCES

Here the shop is inserted on the first floor at the end of the house as the work does not need a connection with the street. Due to that, the spatial relation in the house is not disturbed but the circulation and entrance are shared thus privacy is not maintained in the house.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.2.17 Location of the society

3.2 ROW HOUSE HOME BASED WORK 3. 2. 2 S U N S E T R O W H O U S E Year: 1985 Area: 80 sqm. Location: Gurukul road, Memnagar

MAIN STREET

The society consisting of 218 units was built under the low-cost housing scheme.

Fig 3.2.18 Location of the house

HOUSE INTRODUCTION The house is owned by Sanjaybhai Dabhi. The family consists of 4 members, the owner himself, his wife and their 2 daughters. The ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wife runs a beauty parlor at home. They came to live here in 2005 and extended the house for an extra space for the work. Chapter 3 Case Studies

0 Ground floor

First floor

Fig 3.2.19 Base Plan

C H A N G E S A N D A D A P TAT I O N S Nature of change: Physical changes (additions) Two extensions are done in the house. The front yard is extended and converted into the workspace and the terrace on the first floor has been extended and used as an extra bedroom. This addition provides an extra room to the wife for her beauty parlor. No other physical or functional changes are done in the house. Due to the addition, the house does not have a front yard and the terrace. Fig 3.2.20 Original Plan 68

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.2.21 Plan showing modifications in the house

Ground floor

First floor

Fig 3.2 .4 Isometric showing showing before and after modifications Chapter 3 Case Studies

First floor

ENTRY 2

Ground floor

ENTRY 1 Fig 3.2.5 Spatial realtionship before modifications

First floor Fig 3.2.6 Relation between live/work Entry for family

The overlapping area shows the planes separating live/work.

LEGEND

Ground floor

Fig 3.2.6 Spatial realtionship after modifications 70

Work entrance

living space

working

service space

work access pattern

Chapter 3 Case Studies

S PAT I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P There is a separate entrance for both the functions. The front entrance on the street is used for work and the back entrance is used by the family and guest. Though there is a separate entrance the only disadvantage is that while using the back entrance the family has to enter from the service space and kitchen. There is no change in the spatial relationship between the spaces as the workspace has been inserted on the entrance. The services are organized on the back part of the house while the living spaces are in the front part. The relation of the bedroom on the first floor with the outside has been changed as the terrace has been converted into an extra bedroom. In terms of the relationship between live-work, there is a clear separation between living and working. They never overlap as there is a defined space for working.

S E PA R AT I O N Here the wall separates living and working. There is a shared door and circulation for both the functions. Degree of separation: Some separation (live-near) P R I VA C Y A N D W O R K A C C E S S PAT T E R N The work is placed at the main entrance of the house and the customer can access only that area. There is some visibility of the living space from the work area through the window hence the living room is little less private. But the dining area and the service space are the most private spaces of the house in relation to work. Here the privacy of the house is not disturbed due to work as it is placed on the entrance of the house and there is a separate entrance for both the functions. But the back entrance for a family is through the service space and kitchen. The guest also uses that entrance thus the privacy of those spaces is not maintained. public

Ground floor Chapter 3 Case Studies

First floor

Fig 3.2.7 Plan showing level of privacy and work access pattern

private 71

F L E X I B I L I T Y A N D PAT T E R N O F U S E There is a defined space for each activity and a separate space for working. Hence there is no overlap of activities in a space. There is a separate space for the work thus it follows lineal flexibility as the use of the space is changed into a parlor permanently.

DAY USE

Ground floor

First floor

Ground floor

First floor

LEGEND

work

family

mixed

Fig 3.2.8 Plan showing the pattern of use of the house 72

NIGHT USE

Chapter 3 Case Studies

L I G H T A N D V E N T I L AT I O N The workspace gets sufficient and ventilation throughout the day.

light

Due to insertion of work in the front the direct light and ventilation is disturbed in the living room. The dining space, kitchen and service spaces get light and ventilation from the rear end of the house. The sleeping spaces on the upper floor get a good amount of light and ventilation from both the ends.

Ground floor

First floor

Fig 3.2.9 Plan showing the natural light and ventilation

Fig 3.2.9 View of living and dining room

Fig 3.2.10 Section showing the natural light and ventilation through the workspace Chapter 3 Case Studies

live

work

Fig 3.2.12 Diagram showing connection of the workplace with the main street

VISIBILITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD The parlor is located on the main street and the front facade of the house is made of glass. Hence the parlor is visible from the outside. Though there are curtains which are closed during work for privacy. The customers from the neighborhood visit frequently.

Fig 3.2.13 Exterior view of the house

INFERENCES The work is inserted on the front part of the house which gives it a direct connection to the street but there is no connection of the living spaces with the street. One main advantage is that the privacy of the house and spatial connection is not disturbed.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

➤ N 500 ft

Fig 3.3.1 Location of the house

3.3 TENEMENT HOUSE OFFICE 3. 2. 2 R A N G J Y O T S O C I E T Y Year: 1975 Area: 200 sqm. Location: Ankur, Naranpura

Fig 3.3.2 Location of the house

HOUSE INTRODUCTION The house is owned by Dr. Ujjaval Patel. The family consists of the owner, his wife, son and his mother. The owner’s father bought the house in 1975 and opened a clinic on the ground floor. After his death lately, now his son runs the clinic. There is one helper that comes to the clinic during the working hours. Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.3.3 Base Plan Ground floor

C H A N G E S A N D A D A P TAT I O N S Nature of change: Physical changes Functional changes A lot of internal changes as well as extensions are done in the house along with the functional changes. Originally the ground floor had all the living spaces, kitchen and service spaces while the first floor had sleeping and service spaces. After inserting work the living space and kitchen have been shifted on the first floor.

Fig 3.3.4 Exterior view of the house

On the ground floor, the front rooms of the house are used for the clinic and the rooms at the back are used for other living activities. Some of the spaces in the house are unused or used for storage and does not have a particular function.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

First floor

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Ground floor Fig 3.3.5 Modified plan 77

First floor

Ground floor

Fig 3.3.6 Spatial realtionship after modifications

LEGEND The overlapping area shows the planes separating live/work.

living space

working

service space

work access pattern

Fig 3.3.7 Relation between live-work 78

Chapter 3 Case Studies

S PAT I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P The front entrance leads to the workspace while the side entry is used to go the living space on the ground floor and the stair leads to the living spaces on the first floor. Looking at the organization of the spaces, the workspaces occupy the front part of the house, while the living spaces are at the back and the service spaces are at the side. While on the first floor the living spaces are at the front, sleeping spaces at the back and service spaces on the sides of the house. It can be seen that in the original plan the living spaces were connected with the front yard which had a direct connection with the street. Because of adding the work in the house, there is no direct connection of the living spaces with the main street. In the proposed plan the kitchen was on the side of the house that was connected with the service spaces(wash area). Now that the kitchen is shifted on the first floor, the connection is disturbed. In terms of the relationship between live-work, there is a clear separation between living and working. They never overlap as there is a defined semi-open space for working. S E PA R AT I O N Here walls and slab act as a separator between live/work. There are a separate space and a separate door for working. Degree of separation: Some separation(live-near)

Fig 3.3.8 Living room on first floor Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.3.9 Bedroom on ground floor 79

First floor

public private Fig 3.3.10 Plan showing level of privacy and work access pattern

Ground floor

P R I VA C Y A N D W O R K A C C E S S PAT T E R N The work is placed at the main entrance of the house and the patients can access only that area. There is some visibility of the living space from the work area when the door is open hence the living room is little less private. But the sleeping spaces on the ground floor private. While all the spaces on the first floor remain private. Here the privacy of the house is not disturbed due to work as it is placed on the entrance of the house and there is a separate entrance for both the functions. 80

Chapter 3 Case Studies

DAY USE

First floor

Ground floor

NIGHT USE

First floor

Ground floor

LEGEND

work

family

mixed

Fig 3.3.11 Plan showing the pattern of use of the house

F L E X I B I L I T Y A N D PAT T E R N O F U S E There is a defined space for each activity and a separate space for working. Hence there is no overlap of activities in a space.

There is a separate space for the work thus it follows lineal flexibility as the use of the space is changed into a clinic permanently. Only the front yard and that is used for circulation has mixed-used during the day while after the working hours is used only by the family. Chapter 3 Case Studies

First floor

Fig 3.3.13 Natural light and ventilation in the waiting area

Ground floor Fig 3.3.12 Plan showing the natural light and ventilation

L I G H T A N D V E N T I L AT I O N The workspace, as well as all the dwelling spaces, get sufficient light and ventilation throughout the day. Even though the work is inserted in the front light and ventilation is disturbed in all the spaces because of the house form as it is open on 3 sides.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Fig 3.3.14 Name plate of the clicic on the main facade of the house

live

work

Fig 3.3.16 Diagram showing connection of the workplace with the main street

VISIBILITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD The clinic is located on the main street and on the front facade of the house clearly indicates the presence of the clinic. Hence the workspace is visible from the main street. The patients visit frequently.

from

the

neighborhood

Fig 3.3.15 Exterior view of the house from the street

INFERENCES The work is inserted in the front part of the house so that it gets a connection with the street but the living spaces do not get a connection with the street on the ground floor. There is a separate entrance for both and thus privacy is maintained in the house but the spatial relation between other living spaces is disturbed.

Chapter 3 Case Studies

Ch. 4 INFERENCE Buildings designed for dwelling and buildings designed for working have different requirements for daylight, internal organization and entrance location, facades and so forth. The boundary between the public realm of a workplace and the private realm of the dwelling is different in different places. Because of this diversity, it is difficult to develop a broadly applicable set of detailed guidelines. The aim is to set out a series of attributes, from which project specific guidelines can be developed that can be used for designing mass-produced housing considering the future changes of inserting work at home. Based on the analysis of contemporary live-work as well as taking attributes from the historical examples of work homes, there are some factors that can be considered while designing mass-produced housing that allows the future change for accommodating work. The key findings of the 7 aspects are: CH A NG ES A ND A DA PTAT IO NS Physical changes are done in all the case studies except one in which only functional changes are done. While in the last case study of tenement physical as well as functional changes are made. In the case studies of apartments and row with physical modifications, inserting work was possible because of the extensions made in the house. Without making additions to the house it would not have been possible to accommodate both the functions of living and working. In the case of the apartment where extension was not possible and only functional changes are done, the house had an extra space to accommodate both the functions. While in the case of tenement physical and functional modifications are made because of the large area of the house and the occupation required more space with internal partitions.

Chapter 4 Inferences

In apartments on the ground floor extension and adding workplace there is possible in the front part. In row house extending and adding work is possible on the ground floor in the front or on the first floor. While in the case of the tenement there can be many possibilities as it has three sides open. It can be observed that extensions in the front and inserting the workplace there becomes good for the occupation that requires visibility.

APARTMENT

TENEMENT ROW HOUSE Fig 4.1 Diagram showing the possibility of extension for inserting work in different dwelling types

S PAT I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P In all the case studies, dwelling and working activities are kept separate and there is no overlap between them. This is because of the reasons such as privacy and the requirement of separate space of the occupation.

living space

working

ST RE E

LEGEND

ST R

Though the spatial relation between live-work is different in all the case studies.

Fig 4.2 Diagram showing the spatial relation between live-work 86

Chapter 4 Inferences

After inserting work in the house, the spatial relationship between the internal dwelling activities is not disturbed except in one case study of tenements because the work is either inserted in the new extended space or in the extra room. In tenement, some of the living activities and kitchen on the ground floor have been shifted on the first floor in order to insert work, thus the spatial relation has been disturbed between the dwelling activities.

S E PA R AT I O N In all the case studies, the degree of separation is some separation that is live-adjacent type has been found. In the houses with single storey, walls separate living and working functions. While in case of more than one storey, walls and slab separates both the functions. While in one case time separates both the functions.

P R I VA C Y A N D W O R K A C C E S S PAT T E R N Entrance and circulation are the major factors in workhomes for providing privacy. It can be observed from the case studies that when work is inserted in the front space of the hous, privacy is not disturbed. While inserting the work at back or on the uper floor, it increases the circulation and as the customer has to access the workplace, the privacy in the house becomes low. When there is separate entrance for both the functions, privacy in the house is maintained. It can be seen in three case studies where there is a separate entrance and privacy of the house is not disturbed. While in one case study of row house, entrances are provided at both the ends of the house, but due to the spatial arrangement in the house, there is less privacy in the house even though there are separate entrances for both the functions.

Chapter 4 Inferences

F L E XI BI LI TY A N D PAT TERN OF USE A range of different patterns of use was identified, irrespective of the form of the workhome. This appeared to be dependant on: • the occupation being carried out • the space available • the family structure Out of six, four cases has lineal flexibility in the house as the use of the space is changed permanently to a workspace. While two case studies follow cyclical flexibilty where the use of the space is changed at night. It can be observed in this two case studies that flexible scheduling is a major benefit of working at home. This saves a lot of space and has economic and social benefits without disturbing the privacy of the space.

L I G H T A N D VE N TILATION In case studies of apartment and row house with extension, the quality of light and ventilation is disturbed due to the extension and inserting work in the front part of the dwelling. While even though extesions are done in tenement, light and ventilation is not disturbed because of the frontage of house on three sides. In all the case studies, it can be observed that the workplace has good amount of natural light and ventilation available throughout the day.

V I S IBI LI TY A N D NEIGHB OURHOOD In case of a shophouse, shops need a direct connection to the street. While in home-based work and house office, it depends upon the type of work being carried out by the owner. In shophouse and home-based work the neighborhood plays an important role as the customers are from the nearby area while in case of the houseoffice there are fixed clients where the location is not as much important.

Chapter 4 Inferences

In apartments, the frontages can be shared horizontally and in case of row houses, frontages can be shared vertically while in tenements live and work can share frontage either vertically or horizontally or both. It is observed that in many cases, the work has taken precedence over the residential door and circulation instead of balancing out both.

APARTMENT

ROW HOUSE

TENEMENT

Fig 4.3 Diagram showing the sharing of frontage between live-work in different dwelling types

Chapter 4 Inferences

LEGEND

living space

working

ENDNOTE The workhomes have been ingrained so much in our daily lives that one always fails to notice the significance of it. It should also be noted that even today, many cities have not clearly defined the live/work land use with a specific provision or ordinance, which can make it very difficult for designers and developers to realize these types of houses. By integrating features such as vertical and horizontal distancing, to allow people get away from their work; multiple ground floor entries; visual access between one functional area and the other; and the ability for adaptability or flexibility, live-work typology can be used optimally. What is the optimal relationship of occupational and residential spaces within the dwelling unit, in terms of organization of, access to, and circulation within the unit, to accommodate both family and work. Given that the nature of a homeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s occupants changes, how can workhomes be designed to address adaptability and change to nonoccupational use? The study leaves me with a question that for a meaningful use of the dwelling, how predefined or flexible should it be? How can one decide a balance? What role can be played by architects and designers?

Chapter 4 Inferences

IMAGE CITATIONS All illustrations and images have been done by the author except those specified below. Fig 1.1 https://slideplayer.com/slide/9035001/ Fig 1.2 http://time.com/money/3476164/home/ Fig 1.3 © Wharram Percy, North Yorkshire | Drawing by Peter Dunn Fig 1.4 © Ian Galt/ Museum of London Fig 1.6 © Tower Hamlets Local History Library and Archive Fig 1.7 http://www.theworkhome.com/flexibility-and-adaptability/ Fig 1.8 https://www.skyscrapercity.com/ Fig 1.9 © Willem Koekkoek 1867 Fig 1.11 http://vovworld.vn/es-ES/cultura/el-casco-historico-de-hanoi-y-sus-valores-culturales-424102.vov Fig 1.12 https://thereaderwiki.com/en/Calcutta_Tramways_Company Fig 1.13 https://pnb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandni_Chowk_on_15_August_1947.jpg Fig 1.14 https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/null-bazar.html Fig 1.15 http://imagesandimprints.com/sites/imagesandimprints.com/ Fig 1.16 https://3.bp.blogspot.com/ Fig 1.17 Nayak Shreya. ”Study of the houseforms of Salvi community, Patan : patola makers house” CEPT University, 2014. Fig 1.18-20 http://live-work.com/live-work/live-work-proximity-types/ Fig 1.21 Drawings by Wyatt Hammer and Sam Yerke (Ned White/ Mccobin Studio) Fig 2.1 Google Earth Fig 2.3-2.4 Fig 2.4 Vivek Nanda. “Urban Morphology and the Concept of Type: a Thematic and Comparative Study of the Urban Tissue.” CEPT University, 1990. Fig 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1 Gooogle Earth

BIBLIOGRAPHY Dietsch, Deborah K., and Sarah Susanka. Live/Work: Working at Home, Living at Work. Abrams, 2008. Davis, Howard. Living over the Store: Architecture and Local Urban Life. Routledge, 2012. Holliss, Frances. Beyond Live/Work: the Architecture of Home-Based Work. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. Wong, Yunn Chii, and Johannes Widodo. Shophouse/Townhouse: Asian Perspectives. Department of Architecture, School of Design & Environment, National University of Singapore, 2016. Dolan, Thomas. Live-Work Planning and Design Zero-Commute Housing. J. Wiley, 2012. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Modern Library, 2011. Alexander, Christopher, et al. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford Univ. Pr., 2010. Rene Heijne, Jasper van Zwol, eds. Bernard Leupen. Time-Based Architecture. 2005.

UNPUBLISHED Daniel Kelliher. “Live Work as an Urban Strategy.” The University of Arizona School of Architecture, 2008. Modi, Smit. “Arresting Commercialisation of Historic Residential Neighborhoods.” CEPT University. Sharad Panchal. “Mixed Land Use in an Urban Context: a Case of Ahmedabad.” CEPT University, 2001. Saloni Gajjar. “Transformation of House Forms in Mapusa Due to Commercialisation.” CEPT University, 2012. Vishal Sorathiya. “Space Organization and Physical Alterations in Dwelling Unit : a Study of Co-Op Housing Societies in Himatnagar.” CEPT University, 2004. Shaili Shah. “Study of Designed Flexibility in Mass Produced Houses.” CEPT University, 2004. Nayak Shreya Atul. “Study of the Houseforms of Salvi Community, Patan : Patola Makers House.” CEPT University, 2014.

Mour Neelakshi. “Understanding the Correlation of Occupation with the Spatial Organization of a Built Form.” CEPT University, 2016. Sejpal Shraddha. “Theory and City form.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987. Sherry Ahrentzen. “Hybrid Housing: A Contemporary Building Type for Multiple Residential & Business Use.” University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, 1991. Wang Han. “A Morphological Study of Traditional Shophouse in China and Southeast Asia.” The University of Hong Kong, 2014. Amira Elnokaly. “Demystifying Vernacular Shop Houses and Contemporary Shop Houses in Malaysia; A GreenShop Framework.” University of Lincoln, 2014. Live/work. Northeastern University School of Architecture, 2009.

LINKS http://www.live-work.com/ http://www.theworkhome.com/