Home(lands) & Home(making): Towards a new Minimum

Page 1



PHOTO

[Fig 01]

iii


iv


[Fig 02]

v


vi


HOME (lands) & HOME (making) towards a new MINIMUM

MArch : Urban Design RC11 - Bartlett Living Laboratory Eleni Vagianou July 2017 vii


viii


WHY do we need

HOME as an EXPERIENCE . HOUSE as a TOOL .

MINIMUM ?

Is it a real NEED or just a TREND ?


x


CONTENTS

Abstract

1

Preface

3

Introduction

5

Chapter 1. Home: A Place in the World or in our Minds? 1.1 What makes a Home? (Materially/ Immaterially) 1.2 Memory in Motion & The Sense of ‘At Home’ 1.3 Time & Traces

7 11 13 23

2.1 The (Existenz-) Minimum Dwelling 2.2 Why Minimum?

Chapter 2. The ‘Minimum Home’

2.3 ‘Capturing’ Memory in ‘Minimum Homelands’

27 31 31 39

Chapter 3. ‘At –Minimum- Home’ in the UK 3.1 Housing Standards 3.2 Challenges & Trends of ‘Minimum’

43 47 59

Conclusion

67

Postface

69

Bibliography

List of Images

75

79

xi



ABSTRACT

This thesis is an exploration into the concept of minimum home and its interpretations in the modern world, mainly through the role that memory plays within the domestic environment. The aim is to understand the aspects of the ‘home-making’ process, in order to discuss how ‘home’ can become ‘minimum’, without losing its basic principles, whilst integrating innovative ideas and solutions for the new, complex patterns of living. For the purposes of this thesis, ‘minimum’ is not necessarily defined as small in size, but as the basic necessities, the minimum means needed for an individual to establish a unique place for oneself in space and through time; and this is how the word ‘minimum’ is going to be used throughout this report. The thesis is divided into three chapters; the first introduces the material and immaterial components that form home and discusses the ‘home-making’ as a long-term mental process linked directly with memory constitution. Such a theoretical background provides the frame for the second chapter, which examines why minimum is necessary in contemporary inhabitation and explores the variations of minimum homes around the world and through time. This chapter also focuses on spatial arrangements within the domestic environment, as a result of minimum, and the effect that this might have on the scale of a community or a city. The third chapter starts from the evolution of housing space standards in the UK and the housing crisis phenomenon, in order to conclude to a new ‘minimum home’ solution, proposed in the design project for East Tilbury, Essex, as an innovative housing typology for the future.

1


2


PREFACE

In both the report and the design project, ‘minimum home’ is approached not as a final product, but as a process of an ever-changing construction, which starts as minimum and evolves through time, resulting in multiple layers of memory embodied in it. Whilst the report investigates how the complex environment implies the need for minimum as a simplified way of living and what are the results –spatial, social etc.-, the design applies that in the scale of a community and creates a new inhabitation model for East Tilbury, Essex. The design proposal, which takes place in East Tilbury, Essex, explores how a contemporary ‘minimum home’ and its flexible typology can compose a whole new city; a city as a result of the smallest which grows, according to the inhabitants’ resources, length of stay, needs and habits. By developing further the Bata Houses’ typology with the cross-shaped plan, the main unit of the project is an expandable structure which provides the essentials for the minimum home, the common spaces and at the same time, interacts with the landscape and aspires to ‘trap’ its ‘frozen’ memories. The proposed home starts as a small, structural service core and is developed over time, to suit the household financially and socially, through the addition (or subtraction) of customised plug-in spaces. By reinterpreting the Nationally Described Space Standard, the core starts as ‘minimum’ in size but with multiple flexible and transformable components and each inhabitant is able to arrange his/ her home through time. Along with the customised, private space configuration, a new, common ‘memory facade’ is designed, where personal objects are stored, in order to be used by the inhabitants as storage and subsequently, this ever-changing ‘wall’ becomes a mirror of their everyday life, in the long term. The minimum cores, which are surrounded by a circulation space, are ‘captured’/trapped in the provided cross-structure and as time goes by the spaces are extended through the structural façade. At the centre of the cross are the common spaces for the community. The project is located in the mudflats next to the river Thames, in an area of high flood risk, from which the idea is to expand later on, according to the length of inhabitants’ needs and also the flooding predictions. At the end, the proposed structures aspire to become a new urban fabric, a housing-system adapted to the ever-changing landscape of Essex, by integrating the ‘individual memories’ expressed in the never-ending ‘minimum-home-making’ process.

3


4


INTRODUCTION

‘Minimum’ or ‘Minimalism’ is broadly used in various forms of art and design and it was firstly introduced in Europe approximately at the end of the 19th century, in order to demonstrate the fundamental features and the real identity of art, by eliminating unnecessary and ‘decorative’ elements of the past. Having its roots in the Japanese culture of the XVth century - the ‘wabi-sabi’ aesthetic of modesty, economy, intimacy and imperfection-, ‘minimalist architecture’ adds to the sense of order, quality and the clarity of light within forms. In today’s complex society, we can benefit from a more simplified way of living, from a new ‘minimum’ –and not simply, minimal- aesthetic, as an antidote to the new conditions of living. Looking back to the nomads throughout the history we see that minimum -in terms of dwelling- is used as an advantage in the ability to be mobile due to flexibility, lightness and adaptability. After realising the deeper meaning of minimum, architects need to challenge the status quo of the dwelling typologies, in order to propose ‘minimum home’ as a new strategy of design for the future domestic habitats.

5


6


Chapter 1

Home: A Place in the world or in our minds?

[Fig 03]

7


8


[Cover 01]

9


[Fig 04]

10


1.1 What makes a home? (Materially/ Immaterially) Dwelling & Terminology The concept of ‘habitation’ has been receiving increasing attention in the last few decades and therefore, a lot of interpretations and terms are associated with it; terms that are not usually properly distinguished, but always transformed and enriched with variable meanings and symbolisms. Recognizing the ambiguity of the descriptions, the architect and author Amos Rapoport (1980) applied the generic term ‘dwelling’ to the structures used for living. Philosophers such as Martin Heidegger (1971) and Jean-Francois Lyotard (1988) focus more on the action of dwelling as ‘living’ and ‘being’ in space and time, always in accordance to nature. Additional descriptions which associate dwelling with activity –but not with time and space- are given by the psychologist Susan Saegert (1985) who believes that the experience of dwelling in a place could occur in our own home, in our neighbourhood or in a network of multiple places linked to each other even by airplane routes. This more flexible definition stresses the importance of the individual who acts and creates an emotional, familiar environment, resulting in the complex and multi-faceted term of ‘home’; it is more like an experience, a meaningful procedure, rather than a three-dimensional object -such as house. Alison Blunt and Robyn Dowling (2006) also believe in this by suggesting a more abstract definition of ‘home’, that it is a complex matrix of socio-spatial relationships, a set of ideas and not just a static shelter. They conclude that home is much more than ‘house’ and it constructs, connects places, extending itself across spaces and scales. Hence, ‘house’ is about a physical structure with walls, edges and doors; It is more like a ‘tool’ offered by architects, a container, a vessel in which the user creates his/her individual sense of ‘home’. However, ‘house’ and ‘home’ are not always properly distinguished, whilst the ambiguity of these terms is probably due to their broad use both in academic literature and in daily life. Not all languages and cultures have a word for the meaning of ‘home’, resulting in confusion and misinterpretation in translation. Kimberley Dovey (1985) explains that the circumstances under which home and house are treated as identical, is when the ‘ownership’ is used. In the market field, the estate agents usually are presented as ‘home-sellers’ and try to impose a caring, ‘homey’ and safe image of the advertised house, in order to make it more appealing for the potential buyer to imagine his/herself inhabiting it. However, this situation lacks the important procedure of self-construction, the steps of appropriation and the individual expression through that, which could potentially lead to the final, personal creation of the ‘individual’ home. The German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1971) believed that ‘dwelling’ is a procedure between birth and death, on earth and under the sky. Adding on to this, the American architect Charles Moore (1997, Foreword) mentioned: “One of the basic human requirements is the need to dwell, and one of the central human acts is the act of inhabiting, of connecting ourselves, however temporarily, with a place on the planet that belongs to us and to which we belong”. 11


Layers & Materiality Before going deeper into the archetypes and the theoretical symbolisms expressed within the domestic sphere, it is vital to discuss briefly its material components, not as simple, everyday objects, but as the necessary receivers or containers associated with meanings and therefore, memories. Perhaps the material culture is the main feature which connects and almost identifies the concept of the built house and the concept of home, therefore encouraging the architects’ participation; the rest needs of course to be formed and defined by the inhabitant, as time passes. In his book ‘The Meaning of Home’, Edwin Heathcote (2012) explores whether physic moments, experiences and smells can be captured in fabric, walls and floors and he concludes by calling this multi-layered result an ‘archaeology of sensual inhabitation’ (p. 184). This unique home atmosphere evoked due to the inhabitants’ habits is literally absorbed by the material nature of the interior. Aspects of different scale and age – small possessions, material finishes and textures, entire rooms and their configuration- determine the material domesticity and therefore, the way in which memory will develop within them; it is like the ‘minimum’ tangible feature for the emotions to develop through time. Adding on to this, home is not a tool, it is an experience, a combination of defined territory, of comfort and finally, of memory –or identity- developed by the inhabitants. Territory and comfort is of course provided by the materiality of home and now is that memory can link all together and create the final and unique meaning of home. ‘Home-Making’ as a Mental Process Michel de Certeau (1998) connects the material culture of home described above, with the inhabitant’s personality and therefore, identity and memory, which in my opinion is the third –and perhaps the most vital- of the components which define home -and not house (territory, comfort, memory). “The most modest home reveals the personality of its occupant […] A place inhabited by the same person for a certain duration draws a portrait that resembles this person based on objects (present or absent) and the habits they imply. The game of exclusions and preferences, the arrangement of the furniture, the choice of materials, the range of forms and colours […] an open book, a newspaper lying down, a racquet, ashtrays, order and disorder, visible and invisible […] and even more so the manner of organising the available space, however cramped it may be, and distributing throughout the different daily functions […] – all of this already composes a ‘life narrative’.” Michel De Certeau (1998, pg. 145) It is true, that any material aspect within the domestic interior would be almost useless if it wasn’t connected to a symbolism or meaning in the inhabitant’s mind and heart and this is something that of course needs time to grow. 12


This interesting matrix of socio-spatial relationships and temporal order created within home is directly associated with experiences and senses. The active participation in the creation of home inevitably leads to self-construction and defines the human relationships; and this is why the inhabitant’s involvement is critical in the formation of one’s home. Involvement could mean participation both in the initial construction and in the later process of extending or just rearranging the space. It is interesting to refer to the Roman orators1 of the past, who turned to the home environment, in order to develop memory techniques for recalling familiar information. According to Frances Yates (1966), the Romans believed that the configuration of the domestic interior, along with the mentally associated meanings construct the individual spatial memory. Taking this further and connecting it to my project, when people contribute in the space rearrangement of their own home and define the spatial order from the beginning of their occupation and throughout the years, this idea becomes even stronger and the connection of home with memory more visible . In his book ‘Home possessions: material culture behind closed doors’ Daniel Miller (2001, p.15) says that “home is where the heart is, then it is also where it is broken, torn and made whole in the flux of relationships, social and material”, showing the undeniable fact that memory can have contradictions emerged within the domestic environment, which still however, construct the multi-layered idea of ‘home’.

1.2 Memory in Motion & The Sense of ‘At Home’ Mobile Possessions & Belongings In their article ‘Editorial special issue: house, home and dwelling’, Henny Coolen and Janine Meesters (2012, p. 4) state: “From the perspective of a human being, the environment may be classified in at least five categories: other human beings, other animals, physical objects, social objects, and abstract objects. […] Objects constitute the world or operating environment of the human being. Taken together, they constitute the individual’s world of existence, that is, the things the individual deals with in life activity. Objects have meaning for human beings in terms of the possibilities they offer for actions and intentions; that is, an object may have certain features in relation to a goal of the individual.” This part of the material culture of home is central to the ability of people to move; the objects that people choose to take with them are tokens of their past experiences and at the same time, reveal how they set their future goals or dreams. Edwin Heathcote (2012, p. 11) states: “No matter how mundane, 1 In the ‘Method of Loci’, the subject memorizes the layout and the arrangement of a well-known space or a geographical entity which is composed of a number of discrete loci. When needed, the subject ‘walks through’ these imaginary places and associates the architectural locations with items and therefore, is able to form an image between the item and any feature of that locus.

13


how clichéd or over-familiar the most basic elements of our homes might be, they contain within them a rich history of meaning and allusion that enables us to feel fixed in time and place but also in folk and popular mythology, in memories which might be our own or which might come from films or photoshoots, to place ourselves in a world of familiar and occasionally, the extraordinary”. Jean Sebastian Marcoux (2001) categorises the ‘useful possessions’ that people take with them when they move in: functional, potentially functional and things of little importance. Apart from these, there are also the ‘mnemonic possessions’ that people carry, which take on their value from their association with people, events, places and family’s history. Through displacements and in the new contexts of living the objects may be reinterpreted and therefore, memory is often transformed, altered and refurbished. Marcoux (2011) also claims that the objects’ spatial relationship offer a stability to the individual, because as they move in relation to a fixed place, their spatial configuration remains fixed and stable in relation to the user/inhabitant who also moves. In contrast to what Heidegger (1971) believed, ‘home’ is experienced as a relationship invested in mobile possessions, rather than in place-bound buildings, created in a dispersed way rather than in a concentrated one and revoked by repeated socio-cultural patterns and personal spatial configurations. At the centre of this relationship is a core of personally meaningful possessions, information and spatial configurations that always establish a sense of personal order and identity and thus, create a transferable meaning of home, a memory in motion. Shifting Homes & Stability The idea of reconfiguring the relationships of the material aspects of home is central to the ability of people to move and the nomadic existence of several communities throughout the human history have proven that the aspect of mobility in dwelling is indeed, possible. The nomads’ minimalist lifestyle and the possessions they choose to carry, along with the smart and flexible space configuration within their transitory structures make the idea of a minimum, mobile home come true. As Buchli and Lucas (cited in Miller 2001) explain, “mobility becomes a means for people to define themselves via the transformation of the material structures in which they are intimately subjects”. Qualities of a ‘real home’ without the permanence of a “real site” travel across the world and are easily assembled and dismantled anytime, anywhere. According to Dovey, (1985, p.35): “Being at home is a mode of being whereby we are oriented within a spatial, temporal, and sociocultural order that we understand”. Examples of caravans, submarines and boats, where people can stay for a long time prove that the ability of people to move and at the same time dwell is able when the transferable interior space is compact, but also flexible and adaptive to meet the needs of multiple and transitory users. LéviStrauss (1961, p. 66) describes his first voyage to South America: “In that the ship seemed to us not so much a means of transport as a place of residence – a home, in fact, before which Nature put on a new show every morning.” 14


-what are the things that matter when time to move comes ? -is their meaning transformed through time ? -which of these possessions offer stability, continuity and a sense of ‘at home’ ?



[Fig 05]

Mary, P. from Spain, 24, Architect When time to move came, I struggled to find ways to maintain relations with my friends/family I was leaving behind. All I brought with me was a suitcase full of clothes and two more suitcases of photographs, books and things that reminded me of my beloved ones. Some relations have changed over time, however, these possessions still make me feel at home and this is why I still keep them.


clothes indian

[Fig 06]

Prisha, N. from India, 35, Lawyer I really love traditional clothing and jewellery and although they are not very common in London, I am a great fan as it really reminds me of the Indian habits and customs. Besides, I have not really adjusted to the fashion sense here, so when I wear these clothes it is like being at home; at an annual festival in Ahmedabad with my family and friends.


[Fig 07]

Martina, L. from Germany, 17, Student When I first flew to London, all I had was a backpack with the essentials (passport, money, my laptop, a sleeping bag, a map of London etc.); I really wanted to make a new start in a new city and to put my childhood and all its memories behind ... and who knows? Maybe it is this new start and the experiences I will gain that I might want to remember -and also carry with me- in my future move to another place.


[Fig 08]

Alessandra, R. from Italy, 27, Designer Last year, when I move to London, I brought a lot of possessions from Italy, some of them were just functional and few of them had a meaningful symbolism to me, like my favourite, vintage camera . However, none of them actually make me feel at home! Mostly because the house I moved into is fully serviced and came with all the furniture, even the linen is changed by the building every week; so, it feels like I live in a hotel almost. And also because I’m not very attached to the city, I don’t really feel at home, I think it’s about the emotion this city evokes.


[Fig 09]

George, P. from Greece, 32, Architect Seven years ago, when time to move came, I felt the need to take as much as possible from Greece and of course, my parents encouraged me to do so. Along with the essentials, I brought two suitcases full of authentic Greek food and delicatessen , because I had the feeling that I wouldn’t be able to find similar products in London. As years passed by however, I started realising that the only things that matter are the ones which make someone recall remembrances and sweet memories of the family. Now I have a home full of photographs and this is how I really feel ‘at home’ in London.


[Fig 10]

Andrei, K. from Russia, 23, Architect In order to realise what was important and useful for my 'new life', I had to go through every wardrobe or storage space at home in Moscow and prioritize my needs, since it was impossible to carry everything here; for example, whatever clothes worked for the weather in London I brought with me. I also had to read through almost every architectural book , in order to see which one might be useful in my future studies, etc. At the end I only brought useful things with me; besides, I have my laptop and hundreds of hard disks , where I store my memories.


1.3 Time & Traces Proofs of Living Walter Benjamin (cited in Heathcote 2012, p.15) described ‘living’ as the ‘leaving of traces of ourselves’ and of course, traces are related to time and therefore, memory; in a way they are proofs that an action did take place and are the material remnants of our physical presence at home. Aristotle (350 B.C.) also connects the idea of memory with the lapse of time and mainly with the past, however not with the future nor the present, as these terms refer to predictions and knowledge accordingly. Certainly, the choice of what and what not to remember is determined by our past but it also defines our future actions and indicates a consistency and continuity in the way we live. It is important to realise that home is not just a meaning or a symbolism fixed or frozen in time; it is a continuous process of defining, redefining, interpreting and refurbishing, which means that time plays an important role. Traces of our actions –material or immaterial, visible or hidden- become a ‘measuring system’ of time and are the impact of memory on the house or even the city. Adding on to this, the psychologist Carol M. Werner (1985) believes that the relationship between people and their surroundings is time-bound, so it changes over time, indicating different stages in life. Therefore, home and our feelings towards it are entirely connected with the lapse of time, which according to Werner (1985), is distinguished in linear and cyclical time; the first shows a continuity in this relationship and bridges the gap of past and future or even of the place, while cyclical time is about the every-day routine and the actions that take place repetitively; both are undoubtedly part of the unique notion of home and are directly associated with the proofs of actions that do take place in time. Recording Techniques & Case Studies Recording memory within the domestic environment means that there are some specific ways and techniques that the inhabitant uses –consciously or not-, in order to capture parts of his/her home’s identity and therefore, to ensure its consistency. The arrangement of flexible spaces for example, presupposes the decision of how to orient the rooms, how to place the furniture and what to add in the extra space given (a possibility which is offered in my proposal’s living core). As for the possessions, the choice of sorting out what to keep and what not, contains the process of ordering and classifying what is important for the future identity and what not. Using these techniques is a way of remembering or forgetting the past and bringing back memories into consciousness or in other words, a way of reshuffling the relationships within home and sometimes even inventing new ones. Some innovative examples of architectural or artistic interventions which are related to my design project, as they deal with the idea of time and personal identity within the domestic environment are described below: 23


The ‘Time House’ by Martin Pawley, 1968 is a recording machine with a storage capacity of centuries, which lies on the basement of a house. It is actually a memory mechanism which literally ‘traps’ all evidence of time and the proofs of living on other floors and recalls the past; in other words, the mechanism (which looks like a concrete bunker) captures the ‘lifelong sequence of existence within the house’, as Pawley says (1968, p.402). -In the ‘Thick Wall Pattern’ proposed by Christopher Alexander in 1968, the interior space aspires to become really personal as the architect proposes the very interesting idea of flexible walls which can be carved out by the inhabitants themselves throughout their stay. He believes in a gradual and almost life-long personal adaptation of space and not in an inflexible home which could be provided in the beginning of occupancy. -In the ‘Laurie Mallet Residence’ proposal, designed by Site Studio in 1985, the implication of time is achieved in a more artistic way; ‘Ghosts’ of past furniture and objects are painted white and embodied within the interior walls, resulting in an interesting merging of the frozen memories and the present actions of the new inhabitants. Moreover, one of the most successful –and non-architectural- examples of capturing memory and inscribing time within space is the photo collages of David Hockney, the ‘Joiners’. The artist disagrees with the technique of expressing just a single instant like most photographs always do and therefore, introduces multi-layered time in space and a personal narrative, all in one image. Especially in his work ‘The Desk’ in 1984 he captures multiple moments of a domestic furniture, showing the different actions that take place with and around it. It is interesting to notice that the idea of time and identity within the domestic environment is dealt differently in every project and also the way memory is captured varies. The literal trapping of smells, sounds and textures by a specific mechanism, the chance to arrange the private space almost in every possible way, the simultaneous coexistence of past and present actions and finally, the capturing of multiple moments within a single domestic image is of course, related to my design proposal. The idea of ‘capturing traces of activities that take place within the proposed structural façade aspires to bridge the gap of time and to create a continuous system of proofs and marks within a new urban fabric.

24


Results / Findings How long does it take to make something ‘home? Which are these components that contribute to this familiar feeling and accelerate the appropriation of a new space? Homes are continuously reshaped like domestic spheres of cello tape, which collect things as they roll down, remove others when the glue fades away and leave traces on their path; this is domestic memory. Homes have to deal with each one’s personal order in space and time and not with site, size or dimensions; Memory is a ‘construction of self-narrative’, a personal order, a ‘choice of remembering or forgetting’, that each individual rearranges and reforms continuously. In this direction my project tackles the idea of ‘home’ and ‘time’ and through this process of appropriation, memory is emerged. The provided material culture of the designed living core along with the possessions and belongings that the inhabitants choose, give a reservoir for the future traces of living, which can be further expressed in the designed common spaces. 25


26


Chapter 2

The ‘Minimum Home’

[Fig 11]

27


28


[Cover 02]

29


[Fig 12]

30


2.1 The (Existenz-) Minimum Dwelling At the beginning of the 20th century and specifically after the WWI, the architects of the Modern Movement proposed the ideal ‘minimum home’, which was a ‘machine for living in’, a genius and massive commodity which would address the intense housing shortage immediately. Starting from the post-war Germany, where the house supply was not enough, not only in terms of quantity, but also quality and price, this model aspired to become universal and to introduce a new way of living within an innovative, standardised typology of building. Catherine Bauer (1934) describes that these new housing units are completely different than the ones from the past, as they propose a new conception of the environment, starting from land, sun and air. However, critics of the Existenz-Minimum, like the modernist Karl Teige, argued that the housing crisis was not just a consequence of the War but mainly, a result of the global capitalism and proposed the cooperation of architects, sociologists, politicians, health officials and economists, in order to envision an innovative dwelling type which would be ‘minimum’, but also complete. This overall movement to make something universal, somehow disassociated the house and home, as dwelling units were not at all a tool for personal expression and order.

2.2 Why Minimum? Deformations of Domesticity According to the architect and historian Banister Fletcher (1924, p.1), the first dwellings simply provided “protection against inclement weather, wild beasts and human enemies”, while Junichiro Tanizaki (1977, p. 17) points out the difference between West and East in terms of living, by stating that the first dwellings for the Eastern civilization were just ‘parasol’ roofs that provided a place to “throw shadow on the earth”. Both of these types show the simplicity in which the notion of dwelling was initially perceived and they demonstrate the idea of ‘minimum living’ both in the West and East. Undoubtedly, the 21st century is a period of complexities in multiple levels in the society; the invasion of the computer and therefore, of mass media into our everyday lives brought an overdose of information within our domestic interior and somehow blurred the –once strict- boundaries of private and public space. The fifth dimension of cyberspace shrunk time, compressed geographic space and eliminated distances, creating related communities from around the world, which depend on accessibility and not on propinquity anymore (Webber, 1964). Vicky Richardson (cited in Bose, Finn, Self, 2016) explains that ‘home’ is not really the literal space someone inhabits, but the ‘world’ that you take with you as your individual, online identity. As for the evolution of the home typology in these new conditions of living, Heathcote 31


(2012) states that the physical space of homes has changed surprisingly little because they preserve a desired continuity, in contrast to the rapid changes of technology. Of course, at this period the image of home is even more important and people do need a sense of stability and permanence in their dwellings, however, these could be embodied in minimum homes, which follow the new patterns of our everyday life and return to a more primitive and modest way of living. ‘Minimum’ does not necessarily mean small in size, but the basic necessities, the minimum means for an individual to establish a unique place for oneself in space and time in which he/she can manage and absorb the complexities of the world around with clarity of mind. It is like Henry David Thoreau, the American author and naturalist, who back in the 1840s decided to oppose to the everyday life of industrialization and mass production. He withdrew to a cabin in the woods, a place where –as professor Urs Peter Flueckiger (2016) describes- things became clear and manageable, because the daily life was no longer dominated by information overload and therefore, Thoreau approached the idea of minimum in a more philosophically ecological way. “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!” Thoreau (2004, p.91) said. ‘Minimum Homes’ as a Strategy of Design Quite often, ‘minimum’ is approached either as a matter of budget constraints or of a current trend and not as a conscious choice of designing homes. Different criteria and factors for making a home minimum could potentially have their roots in the long-term history, tradition or customs and undoubtedly, architects have to challenge the status quo of the current housing strategies and adopt several of these principles. To begin with, the traditional homes on the Cycladic Islands in Greece demonstrate the idea of ‘minimum living’ within a simple and flexible housing unit. The main factors which influenced these typologies is the climate: the strong sunlight, the high temperature, the limited water resources and the stiff physical ground, in other words the environment and the surroundings. The unit usually starts from a small, single-space, white volume, with a narrow facade and small openings, but has the ability to expand and penetrate into other units according to the inhabitants’ needs through time, leaving undefined exterior spaces. Another interesting example is the La Tourette’s - or any other spiritual place’shabitation cells of Le Corbusier, which demonstrate the idea of ‘minimum’ both in simplicity and size. The reason is of course ritual, in order the monks or anyone living there to have the clarity of mind to come closer to the divine with all one’s substance, without being distracted by the ‘unnecessary’ or the excessive. Japanese architecture is well known for its clarity and minimalism in aesthetics, while it adopts many principles from the traditional culture of Zen Philosophy, which deals with the idea of simplicity. “Simplicity is not only aesthetic value, it has a moral perception that looks into the nature 32


[Fig 13]


How Spaces are used in minimum homes ? Project DOMESTIC TRANSFORMER Architect EDGE DESIGN INSTITUTE Location HONG KONG, CHINA Year 2007 Users 1-2 Area (m2) 33

Project Architect

SUITCASE HOUSE

EDGE DESIGN INSTITUTE

Location BEIJING, Year 2002 Users 2-8 Area (m2) 250

Project Architect

moving panels moving functions

CHINA

‘hidden’ rooms on the floor flexible floorplan

GRUNDBAU UND SIEDLER Bel Sozietät für Architektur HAMBURG, GERMANY

Location Year 2013 Users Area (m2) 1,670

flexible volume arrangement


Project rchitect

HOME ECONOMICS - MONTHSA DOGMA & BLACK SQUARE VENICE, ITALY

Location Year 2016 Users 1-2 Area (m2) 12

Project

WITHDRAWING ROOM SCOFIDIO + RENFRO SAN FRANCISCO, USA

central core circumferential circulation

Architect DILLER Location Year 1986 Users 4 Area (m2) -

cruciform structure rotating elements

Project CARAVAN Architect Location Year Users 2-4 Area (m2) -

flexible furniture unfolded spaces

[Fig 14]


[Fig 15]


[Fig 16]


[Fig 17]


of truth and reveals the inner qualities of materials and objects for the essence”, Yuriko Saito says (2007, p.87). These ideas of course are embodied in the design of their physical home, which somehow plays with the notion of scale, emptiness, light and the surrounding nature (artificial or not). The Indian Pols of Ahmedabad are also interesting examples of minimum homes, which started around 1740 as enclosed housing clusters for protection against riots and generally each one had its own sanitary arrangements and rules. Even today their main feature is the idea of the collective and the communal, as homes are organised around shared courtyards and narrow roads, creating enclosed, almost autonomous communities within the complex urban fabric of Ahmedabad. Undoubtedly, affordability is indeed one of the most important factors which lead to ‘unwanted’ minimum shelters and this is what happens to homeless people, who usually live this way due to harsh economic reasons. From a spatial point of view though, it is interesting to notice that their bodies –along with their few belongings- define their home territory, which is of course transitory and vulnerable at the same time. From almost the same starting point, in the 45-story “Tower of David” in Caracas, Venezuela, poor people take advantage of the provided structural frame which remains incomplete and occupy the empty space by marking their territory in every possible way. Gradually, the users make their homes which respond directly to their needs and taste and throughout the years an interesting collage of individual memories is inscribed inside the building and on its facade.

2.3 ‘Capturing’ Memory in ‘Minimum Homelands’ Alain de Botton (2006, p. 107) states: “Our homes do not have to offer us permanent occupancy or store our clothes to merit the name. To speak of home in relation to a building is simply to recognise its harmony with our own prized internal song. Home can be an airport or a library, a garden or a motorway diner. […] We need a refuge to shore up our states of mind, because so much of the world is opposed to our allegiances. We need our rooms to align us to desirable versions of ourselves and to keep alive the important, evanescent sides of us.” Our home is like an individual ‘room in the city’, a small trace of inhabitation on the multi-layered urban fabric of complexities and when our minimum home grows or expands, it creates an interesting palimpsest of individual memories, imprinted in the composed city. The influence that a ‘minimum home typology’ exerts on the scale of a city depends on the formation of communities and therefore, on the boundaries between the private (individual space) and the public (shared space). 39


In this direction, it is interesting to examine ‘minimum homelands’ in ‘mobile landscapes’, like the tidal community formed in Makoko, Nigeria. In this slum of around 150.000 inhabitants, homes depend on each other and interact directly with the landscape, the Lagos Lagoon. Even though it seems chaotic from above, a whole grid of canals and waterways connects every home. People are familiar with this ‘minimum’ way of living and although they suffer real poverty and they lack basic infrastructure, they are organised and adapted to their site, creating an entire economic model on the water, which starts from the small unit and expands. In these cases we can realise the role of networks in this expansion process and the freedom the inhabitants should have in determining how the city will grow. As the Hungarian-Israeli architect Yona Friedman envisioned for the Ville Spatiale, the individual occupant should have the freedom to occupy the provided infrastructure in order to form the individual habitat and subsequently, the general layout of the created city. Friedman also believes in a new kind of mobility for the inhabitants and therefore, his ideal city demonstrates the periodical remodelling of both the private and the city habitats without destroying the pre-existing layout, but with adding on to the existing terrain and finally, creating a new cartography on which the city grows and the individual memories are captured. In the same direction, Andrea Branzi, founding member of Archizoom, in his utopian project ‘No-stop City’ explores the degree of freedom the occupants have in shaping their dwelling units over a regulated system of grid structures. Branzi (cited in Kippenberger 2011) states: “Considering architecture as an intermediate stage of urban organization that has to be overstepped, No-Stop City establishes a direct link between metropolis and furnishing objects: the city becomes a series of beds, tables, chairs and cupboards; the domestic and urban furniture fully coincide.”

40


Results / Findings As a result of the ‘minimum’ design strategy, variable space arrangements occur which, in my case, are also related to my design project and more specifically, my intention in the ‘home-making’ process and the created sense of community. Flexible home-territories defined just by the human body and its moves (homeless people), methods of expansion like addition and extraction (Cycladic Homes), interesting room layouts and interaction with the surroundings (Japanese Homes), simplicity and emptiness in the interior domestic space (monks’ cells), and finally, shared amenities and a strong sense of community (Ahmedabad Pols). Today, more than ever, ‘minimum home’ should become the solution to the ever-changing world of technology and as said before, ‘minimum’ doesn’t necessarily mean small in size, but the basic effort required, by an individual or a group of people with specific habits and beliefs, to create the multi-layered concept of ‘home’ and a familiar environment around it. 41


42


Chapter 3

‘At (Minimum) Home’ in the UK

[Fig 18]

43


44


[Cover 03]

45


[Fig 19]

46


3.1 Housing Standards Evolution Housing ‘space standards’ in the UK have been a subject of discussion for almost one hundred years, tackling different economic, social and of course, political conditions every time. The idea of actually creating a space standard dates back to the post-war period, when the living circumstances were poor and many residential buildings were completely damaged. The Tudor Walters report in 1918 aimed at defining generous requirements for high quality houses, providing the soldiers returning from the war with ‘Homes fit for heroes’ and proposed that the minimum space standard for every housing unit should be three rooms (living room, kitchen, and parlour) on the ground floor, three bedrooms above, a pantry and a bathroom (Min. Total Area: 98m2 and 79.4m2 with or without a parlour, accordingly). Following this report, the Housing Act of 1935 tried to control the issue of overcrowding houses, as they were deemed to be dangerous to the health of the inhabitants, and therefore, defined the minimum areas and numbers of rooms according to the number of inhabitants. Norman Hancock (1936, p. 703), Chief Sanitary Inspector, states: “Where it becomes necessary to provide houses with a greater number of bedrooms than four, it may be found more advantageous to erect a pair of houses to the usual plan of the three-bedroom-parlour type and, by means of internal adaptations, divide these into one large house with four, five or six bedrooms, and a small dwelling suitable for a couple or a small family. Possibly this latter dwelling would be on one floor, but perhaps with an additional bedroom above, depending upon the number of bedrooms required for the large family. In this way, if at any time the large amount of accommodation becomes unnecessary, the dwellings can be reconverted to their original plan.” It is interesting to notice that in this proposal of 1935, the houses are envisioned as quite flexible and can be adapted to the inhabitants’ needs, dealing with the idea of additions or subtractions in the initial volume. According to the architect Julia Park (2017), the Housing Act of 1935 also defined the ‘room standard’ which remains unchanged until today and the calculation of the maximum permitted number of people for a given dwelling (One room = two persons, Two rooms = three persons, Three rooms = five persons, Four rooms = seven and a half persons, Five rooms or more = ten persons plus two for each room in excess of five rooms). The first set, however, of evidence-based space standards were introduced in 1960s –an era of the great council house building- as the ‘Parker Morris Housing Standards’, which tried to tackle the major changes in living; better heating and more importantly, more space. According to the professor of Social History, Jon Burnett (1986) in this case, increased space was needed for addressing activities which need privacy and quiet, more storage and 47


circulation areas, larger kitchens for incorporating the dining area within, space for car parking, a television set etc. He also argues that the radical change in the Parker Morris Housing Standards is that they question pre-existing assumptions on housing (like number of stories needed, furniture functions, room uses etc.) and that they explore new, unconventional patterns of living, by focusing more on the multiple activities that could potentially take place in the designed spaces. These fundamental housing standards were held for almost two decades, until the PM, Margaret Thatcher considered them as an obstacle to development in 1980. A critical year in the evolution of housing standards was 2015, when the ‘Nationally Described Space Standards’ were introduced by the Department for Communities and Local Government, in an attempt to control the proliferation of ‘local housing standards’ across the country. It is important to realise that after 1920s, the increase in the total area of the house was mainly due to the enlargement of circulation spaces, ‘service’ and utility rooms, rather than bedrooms or living-rooms. In this direction, my project uses the communal areas for storage and other kinds of secondary spaces, so that the ‘dwelling core’ is for living-spaces and thus, it can again become minimum without losing its principles. John Burnett (1986) argues that the regulations of the 20th century for housing in the UK have achieved some really important improvements in terms of the design, and the layout of the space, and have also introduced amenities and fittings of higher quality for the house (see Fig 20, 23). However, he continues, the problem is still not solved today and as Julia Park adds on to this (2017), the consequences and the impact of the last decade’s building regulations remain to be seen. The ‘UK Minimum Crisis’ Undoubtedly, the current housing crisis in the UK –which is not the first and possibly not the last one- is a consequence of both socio-economic circumstances and political reforms of the last thirty years. The people living in Britain have almost identified home with shortage and unaffordability, two terms which of course depend on each other (see Fig 21). Julia Park (2017, p.3) states: “Space is likely to remain a highly contentious issue. Many people believed then, and still believe now, that it would be simpler, better and fairer for the space standard to be regulated“. The central theme which undergoes changes in every set of regulations and at the same time is the main way for the developers to make profit is the size, the area. According to a study originally produced by Evans and Hartwich in 2005, Britain’s newly built homes are indeed the smallest in Western Europe (see Fig 22), whilst similar is the ranking in dwellings as a total, indicating that size is a key issue in the current housing crisis. Existing apartments are divided in as more rooms as possible, living rooms are transformed into bedrooms so that more people can fit in and therefore, the rent is increased. Generally, although the minimum standards tend to rise throughout the years, this happens without 48


Floor Area (m2) Floor area (m2)

Nothing to be gained by overcrowding (Raymond Unwin)

1918

Tudor Walter Report Housing Act 1919 (Addison Act)

1924 1926 1928

1932

1936

Housing Act 1935

1939

1945

1950

Dudley Report and Housing Manual 1944

Housing Manual 1949

1955

1959 1961

Flats and Houses: Design and Economy

Parker Morris Published Housing Act 1964

1967

Parker Morris Mandatory

1975 GLC Preferred Dwelling Plans

Design and Contact Criteria (Housing Corporation) Housing Act 1985

1991 Scheme Development Standards and TCIs (Housing Corporation)

Standards and Quality in Development (NHF) Housing Quality Indicators (Housing Corporation)

Quality Standards (English Partnerships) Housing Space Standards (Andrew Drury)

2007 2008

Design and Quality Standards (HCA)

2010 2011 2012

HCA Consultation London Housing Design Guide; Interim Version (DFL) London Plan 2012 and Housing SPG 2012

2015 2016

Quantifying the Extent of Space Shortage: English Dwellings Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS) MALP & London Housing SPG 2016

Standards and Quality in Development Version 2

[Fig 20]


Two Decades of falling Interest Rates

Increased Mortgage availability Wealth Inequality

Rising Income Tax Incentives

to rise by 50% in the next ten years

The price of the typical uk home is forecast

Lack of new Homes built

Average UK house Price March 2005 to March 20017 225

Pounds (thousands)

Why do we want to redesign the home?

Housing Crisis due to:

200 175 150 125

2005

2009

2013

2017

House Prices rise faster than Incomes If

London

had the same density today as it did in 1815,

it could accommodate nearly 35 Unaffordable House

million people

Prices relative to Earnings

Property price to earnings ratio 10

Thurrock

Times Earnings

8

England

6

Wales

4

2

[Fig 21]

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016


Comparison of Selected European Dwelling Sizes

FINLAND 76.5 m²

SWEDEN

3.6

89.8 m²

21.3 m²

4.3 20.9 m²

UK

DENMARK

85 m² 5.2

IRELAND

108.9 m²

16.3 m²

3.7

88.3 m²

29.4 m²

5.3

BELGIUM NETHERLANDS

16.7 m²

86.3 m²

98 m²

4.3

4.2

20.1 m²

23.3 m²

GERMANY

FRANCE

86.7 m²

LUXEMBOURG 4.4

88 m² 3.9

125 m²

22.6 m²

AUSTRIA 90.6 m² 3.4

19.7 m²

5.5

26.6 m²

22.7 m²

PORTUGAL 83 m²

SPAIN

4.3 19.3 m²

GREECE

85.3 m²

79.6 m²

4.8

ITALY

17.8 m²

Floor Space No. of Rooms Room Size

20.9 m²

4.1 22 m²

Private renters in th UK spend almost comparson

with

the

40%

European

income on average of 28%

of their

Average Household Size, England & Wales 6 5

4.3

4 3

2.4

2

2011

2001

1981

1991

1971

1961

1941

1951

1931

1911

1

1921

in

Persons

rent

3.8

90.3 m²

[Fig 22]


Space Space Standards Standards Study Study

This This study study of of room room sizes sizes relative relative to to designed designed occupancy occupancy levels levels is the is the basis basis of of thethe minimum minimum space space standards standards (GIA) (GI

Kitchen Kitchen

Dining Dining

Living Living

Double Double

Twin Twin

Single Single

Bathroo Bathro

9.4 9.4 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

- -

- -

8.0 8.0 sq.m sq.m

3.6 3.6 sq.m sq

10.410.4 sq.m sq.m

13.013.0 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

- -

- -

4.4 4.4 sq.m sq

11.211.2 sq.m sq.m

14.014.0 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

- -

8.0 8.0 sq.m sq.m

4.4 4.4 sq.m sq

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

14.814.8 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

- -

4.4 4.4 sq.m sq

12.812.8 sq.m sq.m

16.016.0 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

8.0 8.0 sq.m sq.m

6.8 6.8 sq.m sq

14.414.4 sq.m sq.m

17.017.0 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

12.012.0 sq.m sq.m

16.016.0 sq.m sq.m

6.8 6.8 sq.m sq

1-person 1-person

6.2 6.2 sq.m sq.m

dining dining areaarea 3.2 sq.m 3.2 sq.m

1-bed, 1-bed, 2-persons 2-persons

6.8 6.8 sq.m sq.m

dining dining areaarea 3.6 sq.m 3.6 sq.m

2-bed, 2-bed, 3-persons 3-persons

7.5 7.5 sq.m sq.m

dining dining areaarea 3.6 sq.m 3.6 sq.m

2-bed, 2-bed, 4-persons 4-persons

7.5 7.5 sq.m sq.m

dining dining areaarea 4.5 sq.m 4.5 sq.m

3-bed, 3-bed, 5-persons 5-persons

8.3 8.3 sq.m sq.m

dining dining areaarea 4.5 sq.m 4.5 sq.m

4-bed, 4-bed, 6-persons 6-persons

9.6 9.6 sq.m sq.m

dining dining areaarea 4.5 sq.m 4.5 sq.m


um space standards (GIA)

Single

Bathroom

Storage/ Utility

Outdoor

Net Internal

Circulation

Partition Walls

GIA

37.0 sq.m

8.0 sq.m

3.6 sq.m

1.0 sq.m

4.0 sq.m

-

4.4 sq.m

1.5 sq.m

5.0 sq.m

1 Level Flat

2.0 sq.m

37.0 sq.m

41.0 sq.m

1 Level Flat

2.5 sq.m

50.0 sq.m

51.5 sq.m

1 Level Flat

3.0 sq.m

61.0 sq.m

54.5 sq.m

2 Storey House

3.5 sq.m

70.0 sq.m

58.0 sq.m

1 Level Flat

3.5 sq.m

70.0 sq.m

60.0 sq.m

2 Storey House

4.0 sq.m

79.0 sq.m

71.0 sq.m

1 Level Flat

4.5 sq.m

86.0 sq.m

72.0 sq.m

2 Storey House

5.0 sq.m

93.0 sq.m

72.0 sq.m

3 Storey House

5.0 sq.m

99.0 sq.m

81.5 sq.m

1 Level Flat

5.0 sq.m

99.0 sq.m

82.5 sq.m

2 Storey House

5.0 sq.m

106.0 sq.m

82.5 sq.m

3 Storey House

5.5 sq.m

33.5 sq.m

+1.5 sq.m

50.0 sq.m

8.0 sq.m

4.4 sq.m

2.0 sq.m

6.0 sq.m

+6.5 sq.m

+6.5 sq.m

+19 sq.m

86.0 sq.m

-

8.0 sq.m

16.0 sq.m

4.4 sq.m

6.8 sq.m

6.8 sq.m

2.5 sq.m

3.6 sq.m

3.6 sq.m

7.0 sq.m

8.0 sq.m

9.0 sq.m

+8.5 sq.m

+19.0 sq.m

+10.5 sq.m

+19.0 sq.m

+25.0 sq.m

+12.5 sq.m

+19.0 sq.m

+25.0 sq.m

112.0 sq.m

[Fig 23]


Comparison of Space Standards, UK 120

Area (m²)

100 80 60 40

6b8p

6b7p

5b8p

5b7p

4b8p

5b6p

4b7p

4b5p

4b6p

3b6p

3b5p

2b4p

3b4p

2b3p

1p

1b2p

20

1 storey Dwelling Types NDSS (2015-now) Parker Morris (1961-1980)

Permanent dwelling completed, UK Dwellings completed (thousands)

300

250

200

All

150

Private enterprises 100

50

Housing associations Local authorities

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2014

Thurrock housing completions

1000 800 600 400

[Fig 24]

2015

2014

2013

2012

2010

2011

2009

2008

2007

2006

2004

2005

2002

2003

200 2001

Additional Dwellings

1200


[Fig 25]

55


INHABITANTS

MINIMUM LIVING CORE

TERRITORY

ADDIT relax plant

A

+7.000 GBP

Name: Thomas B. Age: 36 Occupation: Biologist Nationality: German

-1.00

expa shared shelves

B dress

B

Core Area: 3m2 Expanded Core Area: 15m2 Uses: Sleep, Wash, Cook, Work/Ascend

Name: Lily K. Age: 33 Occupation: Designer Nationality: British

+1.500 GBP

Name: Maria L. Age: 14 Occupation: Librarian Nationality: Spanish

pla

E A S T

+7.000 GBP

T I L B U R E Y S S E X

wash

sleep

observe

Name: Jack L. Age: 45 Occupation: Architect Nationality: Canadian

C

+1

Name: Micaela S. Age: 42 Occupation: Teacher Nationality: French Name: Angela L. Age: 17 Occupation: Student Nationality: Canadian

expand

CLUST ER TY PE

sleep

ii

shared shelves

Name: Giannis L. Age: 8 Occupation: Student Nationality: Canadian

C

expand

common exterior & circulation

observe

D shared shelves

D

sleep pray

Name: Ian L. Age: 31 Occupation: Director Nationality: British Name: Tina S. Age: 30 Occupation: Nurse Nationality: Swedish

+2.500 GBP

Name: Martina B. Age: 3 Occupation: Nationality: British

YEARS

56

0

1

2

3

4

5


CONCEPT DIAGRAM

TIONS

EXTENDED LIVING CORE

CONNECTIONS connect

+2.000 GBP

store

observe

A’

00 GBP

CLUST ER TY PE

A’ + C’

i

get married

and

A

common exterior & circulation

shared shelves expand

B’ store plant

sleep

-3.500 GBP

moves in

play

chill

sleep

moves out

expand

ant

Name: Melania S. Age: 29 Occupation: Fashion Designer Nationality: Brasilian

C’

10.000 GBP

CLUST ER TYP E

moves in expand

Name: George P. Age: 32 Occupation: Artist Nationality: Greek

iii

C’

shared shelves connect

moves out

common exterior

+4.500 GBP

common exterior

level 1

level 2

A’

shared shelves

expand

sleep

D’

passes away

sleep

new member

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

[Fig 26]

57


[Fig 27]

58


planning and most importantly without integrating the new habits and needs into the regulations. It is interesting to notice however, that Tudor Walter’ house of 79.4m2 in 1918 was almost the same with the 2b4p NDSS house of 79m2 (see Fig 24), indicating that whist patterns of everyday life have changed throughout the years ( entire rooms are of no use, furniture is more flexible and multifunctional etc.) the space standards unfortunately do not follow.

3.2 Challenges & Trends of “Minimum” Live Small or Minimum? Several ideas and trends have been proposed in an attempt to justify and at the same time to encourage the small size in housing developments. The ‘Pocket Living’ was founded approximately 10 years ago for the young firsttime buyers –singles or couples- who cannot afford the open market. Pocket Living homes are built below the space standards and promote the idea of a compact design along with the –arbitrary- opinion that young people do not have much possessions to store, so they do not need the extra square meters. However, these small homes lack flexibility and therefore, cannot adjust to a couple’s future family for example. Besides, as the architect Meredith Bowles (cited in Stockley 2015) states, not all of us tend to live a monastic life and in micro-apartments there is no room for the boiler, the pram, the ironing board or books, indicating that there is no real comfort within these dwelling units. He continues that in this way we could slide into a position where we open the door to substandard buildings. Adding on to this, a RIBA’s survey (cited in Joyce 2011) showed that almost 58% of new-home buyers in 2009 said there was not enough space for furniture they owned, or would like to own, 70% said there was not enough storage for their possessions, whilst families reported they did not have enough space to socialise, entertain guests or spend quiet time in private. Taking all the above constraints of ‘living small’ into consideration, limited size is of course not the main reason why the extra uses and needs cannot be adapted or embodied within the domestic environment; in my opinion and above all, proper and flexible space arrangement and of course, well designed communal spaces could lead to a new way of ‘living minimum’ and not just small. Due the scale of the crisis in global cities like London, ‘micro-living’ could be certainly a vital solution in the design, as long as homes are designed to meet people’s ever changing needs both in personal and collective level. In the UK, a Knight Frank study (cited in Barhat 2015) found 54% of 18 to 24 year olds were happy to consider living in a small studio flat that makes living in central locations affordable. “Micro-build” architect Ric Frankland (cited in Joyce 2011) believes that small does not necessarily have to mean cramped and states: “If the major house builders were to employ excellent designers - and more importantly give them the time they need to come up with good designs - small homes could be much more liveable-in.” 59


It is interesting to refer to Holmes Road Studio project, designed by Peter Barber Architects as a successful example of micro-homes for homeless people; the housing units provide just the essentials (en suite bathroom, mezzanine bed space), but they also have a great relationship with the exterior courtyard and garden, where all the collective activities take place and the sense of participation and community becomes stronger. In this way, and as my design project proposes (see Fig 25,26), home could start as a sustainable ‘minimum core’ providing the essentials for living, but with the ability to expand further, in order to meet the inhabitants’ needs and changes in their future life. Further needs could be met by the communal spaces with a view to sharing and exchanging with one another, creating a ‘communal wall’ (see Fig 29, 31), a palimpsest of shared memories between the inhabitants. Besides, the idea of sharing ‘communal amenities’ is almost necessary in this way of living, as it is a way of minimising ones physical private space. In this direction, the proposal ‘Hours’ of Jack Self, Shumi Bose and Finn Williams (2016) in the exhibition ‘Home Economics’ at the 15th International Architecture Exhibition-La Biennale di Venezia, presented ‘sharing’ as a potential luxury and not as a compromise, providing a communal ‘garderobe’ for the inhabitants’ exchanging objects etc. Even the main Bata House typology (see Fig 27) in East Tilbury, Essex is based on the idea of sharing. The double house with the cross-shaped plan on Bata Avenue which accommodates two families, shares a fireplace in the centre; this idea is incorporated into my design, as the archetype of the cross is used in the main housing cluster . East Tilbury: ‘Shifting –Minimum- Homelands’ In his article ‘Home and Homelessness’, Dovey (1985, p.57) states: “Traditional cities and villages for which our culture is so often nostalgic were not produced from master plans but grew piecemeal over a long period of time, responding to circumstances at a local level. The phenomenon of home, too, grows piecemeal rather than being created complete. Swiftly implemented large developments may lend the impression of solving large-scale problems, yet they do so at the expense of the adaptability and identification possible when we understand the processes by which houses can grow as families grow—as economic resources permit and as needs arise.” This idea of the small which expands and grows over time is the main idea of how my design proposal interacts with the existing urban fabric and the landscape. The speed or the pace in which the environmental changes occur is not independent of the home-making process. It is very important for the dweller to assure a continuity which is in close relationship with the surroundings. If the changes are fast and unpredictable, then this continuity is lost and the sense of ‘at home’ might be eroded over time. The sense of identity and memory is of course one of the most important features that create a home. In my proposal for East tilbury mucking mudflats, the structure (see Fig 28) adapts to the landscape and is ready to interact with its changes. The proposed units can be expanded in almost every direction, avoiding –or not- the 60


tidal forces and the flooding threats. This whole process leaves imprints of inhabitation on the landscape and finally, a new city palimpsest is created; a palimpsest which incorporates the smallest, within the bigger and faster changes that occur in the ever-changing site plan. New frames of living, different space articulation on the inside and new surroundings on the outside indicate an ‘ephemeral’ nature, within, however, a familiar domestic order and environment. The application of this system produces a minimum home that offers a standardised frame for the constan unfolding of everyday life.

Results / Findings As history has proven, housing ‘space standards’ in the UK have been an issue for discussion for a long time and as it can be seen from the ongoing crisis, things are not solved yet. With the population always rising, size of the dwellings will always be subject to regulations and changes, whilst Britain remains a global hub and London a metropolis. The design strategy however, needs to shift and turn to a more individual customer-designed living unit; the future is indeed flexible and custom build. And of course, this new approach always needs to interact with the surroundings and not be solely; like the proposal in East Tilbury, where both the interior and the overall structure is adaptive and flexible, interacting with the interesting surroundings and landscape. ‘Shifting -Minimum- Homelands’ project aspires to become a new ‘minimum’ community and a dynamic part of Essex, suggesting finally, a way of thinking and acting for the contemporary, society and the complex urban fabric. 61


62


[Fig 28]

63


64


[Fig 29] 01]

65


[Fig 30]

66


CONCLUSION

Edwin Heathcote (2012, p. 15): “A house is a museum, an exhibition of the changes in the way life has been lived. Historians strip back layers of wallpaper in old houses to discover the successions of colour schemes, from arsenic green [...] to curry-house maroon flock. A house is like a body which can be dressed in layers, which can be stripped and changed, made up and tatooed. But it can also be changed right to its core.“

The multiple layers of home and the way they evolve and change through time are linked to the inhabitants’ history and subsequently, the traces of inhabitation make the relationship with the community and the society visible and strong. Homes have to deal with each one’s personal order in space and time and not with site, size or dimensions; Memory is a ‘construction of self-narrative’, a ‘choice of remembering or forgetting’, that each individual rearranges and reforms continuously. It is the ‘minimum’ factor that makes this connection more modest, deep and real as it eliminates the unnecessary and the excessive and creates an individual space with clarity and substance. So for me, the ‘minimum home’ is initially, a small core (in terms of size and area), which provides the basics for habitation and at the same time has the important ability to change (expand, be rearranged etc.) according to the inhabitant. And this is probably the only way to manage the complexities of our century, either this means to oppose to them or to adopt parts of them. After realising the true -and various- meaning of minimum, architects need to challenge the both the existing regulations -in terms of the UK- and also the status quo of the dwelling typologies in terms of design worldwide- and experiment in multiple space arrangements. ‘Minimum home’ as a new strategy of design for the future domestic habitats should be a result of a long-term process, investigation and exploration; but ‘minimum’ not as a constrain, but as a great advantage for a new -socially and ecologically- aware approach of -minimum- inhabitation.

67


68


POSTFACE

This thesis, which is an exploration into the concept of minimum home and its interpretations in the contemporary world, provided a theoritical frame for the design project, which seeks to establish a new minimum typology and a relationship between the individualities and the created community. In both projects, home(making) is approached as a long-term process and not as a place or a physical container for living. And because the inhabitant has the possibity to arrange his/her -interior and also exterio- space throughout his occupancy, the idea of starting as ‘minimum’ and then expanding can be true. ‘Minimum’ throughout this report is examined firstly, as small in size, but afterwords, as the basic necessities, the minimum means needed for an individual to establish a unique place for oneself in space and time; The interesting part of these parallel procedures of the design and the report, is the various case studies I examined, in order to uderstand minimum housing typologies around the world and through time. ‘Minimum homes’ which were not always designed by architects, but which demonstrated multiple initiatives, ideas and principles on minimum living and therefore, resulted in innovative space arrangements. Many of these ideas are incorporated in my design and adapted to the case of East Tilbury, Essex. Adding on to this, in my case it was about an interpretation of both the Nationally Described Space Standards, the principles of the case studies and of course the pre-existing Bata housing typoology of the site, which was further developed. However, the main question of how this idea of innovative minimum habitation will overcome the obstacles of regulations and wrong interpretations (developers’ profits, political changes etc.) remains unsolved and probably it will take long to realise...why minimum?

69


70


[Fig 31]

71


72


[Fig 32]

73


74


BIBLIOGRAPHY Aristotle. Ca 350 B.C. On memory and Reminiscence. Annals of Neurosciences, 17(2), pp. 87-91. Barhat, V. 21 April 2015. Live small, be happy? The next new big thing. [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20150420-why-small-is-the-new-bigthing [Accessed 9 July 2017]. Bauer, C. 1934. Modern Housing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press. Benjamin, D. ed. 1995. The home: words, interpretations, meanings, and environments. Aldershot: Avebury. Bose, S. Finn, W. Self, J. eds. 2016. Home Economics. London: The Spaces. Botton, A. de. 2006. The Architecture of Happiness. New York: Vintage Books. Blunt, A. Dowling, R. 2006. Home. London: Routledge. Branzi, A. 2006. No-Stop City: Archizoom Associati. OrlĂŠans: Editions HYX. British Council Arts. 2016. Home Economics: Venice Architecture Biennale 2016. [online]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVnPOo19qj8 [Accessed 9 July 2017]. Buller, J. 1990. [Orchestra]. The theatre of memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burnett, J. 1986. A Social History of Housing 1815-1985. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd (2nd ed.) Busch, A. 1999. Geography of home: writings on where we live. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Certeau, M. de. 1998. The practice of everyday life. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Ciorra, P. Ostende, F. eds. 2016. The Japanese house architecture and life after 1945. Venice: Marsilio Editori. Coolen, H. Meesters, J. 2012. Editorial special issue: house, home and dwelling. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27(1), pp. 1-10. Cousins, M. 1993. The first House. In: D. McCorquodale, ed. Arch-Text 1. London: ArchText, pp.35-38. Dezeen. 26 May 2016. British Pavilion calls for architects to redesign home ownership rather that houses. [online]. Available from: https://www.dezeen.com/2016/05/26/ home-economics-british-pavilion-venice-archiÂŹtecture-biennale-2016-uk-housing/ [Accessed 10 January 2017]. Dovey, K. 1985. Home and Homelessness. In: I. Altman and M. C. Werner, eds. Home Environments, Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 33-64.

75


Faegre, T. 1979. Tents: Architecture of the Nomads. London: J. Murray. Flueckiger, U. P. 2016. How much house? Thoreau, Le Corbusier and the Sustainable Cabin. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. Hancock, N. 1936. The Housing Act, 1935-Practical Administration. Shrewsbury: SAGE Publications. Heathcote, E. 2012. The meaning of Home. London: Frances Lincoln Ltd. Heidegger, M. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper & Row. Ioannidou, E. 2006. The (Existenz-) Minimum Dwelling. Thesis (Ph.D.), the Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL. Joyce, J. 14 September 2011. ‘Shoebox homes’ become the UK norm. [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580. [Accessed 9 July 2017]. Kacmar, D. 2015. BIG little house. New York: Routledge. King, M. C. 1998. The Suitcase: (Postcards and Paraphernalia), redefining the space of tourism and travel. In: R. Kronenburg, ed. Transportable environments: theory, context, design and technology. London: E & FN Spoon, pp. 37-46. Kippenberger, M. 20 April 2011. The Happy End of Franz Kafkas’ Amerika (1994). [online]. Available from: http://socks-studio.com/2011/04/20/martin-kippenberger%E2%80%99sthe-happy-end-of-franz-kafka%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98amerika%E2%80%99-1994/. [Accessed 11 July 2017]. Kronenburg, R. ed. 1998. Transportable environments: theory, context, design and technology. London: E & FN Spoon. Kronenburg, R. 2002. Houses in motion: the genesis, history and development of the portable building. 2nd ed. Chichester: WILEY-ACADEMY. Le Corbusier. Goodman, J. 2008. Toward an architecture. London: Frances Lincoln. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1961. Tristes Tropiques. New York: Criterion Books. Maak, N. 2015. Living Complex: From Zombie City to the New Communal. Munich: Hirmer Publishers. Mack, A. ed. 1993. Home: a place in the world. New York; London: New York University Press. Marcoux, J. S. 2001. The Refurbishment of Memory. In: D. Miller, ed. Home possessions: material culture behind closed doors. London: Berg, pp. 69-86. Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, Vol.50 (No.4), pp. 370-396. Miller, D. ed. 2001. Home possessions: material culture behind closed doors. London: Berg.

76


Moore, C. 1977. “Foreword”. In: J. Tanizaki. In Praise of Shadows. Connecticut: Leete’s Books. Park, J. 2017. One Hundred Years of Housing Standards-What now? [online] Available from: http://housingspacestandards.co.uk [Accessed 14 June 2017]. Pawley, M. 1968. The Time House. Architectural Design, 38 (9), pp.399-402. Rapoport, A. 1980. Towards a cross-culturally valid definition of housing. In: R. R. Stough & A. Wandersman, eds. Optimizing environments—research, practice and policy, EDRA 11. Washington, DC: EDRA. Rodriguez, M.I. ed. 2011. Architecture with the People, by the People, for the People: Yona Friedman. León: MUSAC. Rzevski, G. 2015. Complexity as the defining feature of the 21st century. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 10(3), pp. 191-198. Saegert, S. 1985. The Role of Housing in the Experience of Dwelling. In: I. Altman and M. C. Werner, eds. Home Environments. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 287-8. Saito, Y. 2007. The Moral Dimension of Japanese Aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65(1), p. 87. Shanley, L. J. ed. 2004. Walden; or, Life in the Woods. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Stockley, P. 28 January 2015. Pocket Living in London: stylish micro-flats for singles or couples who earn under £66,000. [online]. Available from: http://www.homesandproperty. co.uk/property-news/buying/new-homes/pocket-living-in-london-stylish-microflats-forsingles-or-couples-who-earn-under-66000-41371.html#gallery [Accessed 09 July 2017]. Teige, K. 2002. The Minimum Dwelling. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Tent City, U.S.A. 2012. [Documentary Film]. Directed by: Steven Cantor. Nashville: Stick Figure Productions. Vance, B. 2001. In the Darkness: After the Rausch of Aura. In: L. Patt, ed. Benjamin’s blind spot: Walter Benjamin and the premature death of aura: with the Manual of lost ideas. Topanga: Institute of Cultural Inquiry, pp. 43-56. Webb, M. 1968. The Suitaloon. In: P. Cook, ed. Archigram Seven: Beyond Architecture. New York: Praeger Publishers. pp. 80. Webber, M. ed. 1964. Explorations into Urban Structure. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Werner, C. 1985. Temporal Aspects of Home: A transactional perspective. In: I. Altman, ed. Home environments: Human behavior and environment, pp. 1-32. Wilkinson, C. 1991. Supersheds: the architecture of long-span, large-volume buildings. Guildford: Butterworth Architecture. Yates, F. 1966. The Art of Memory. Abingdon: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

77


78


LIST OF FIGURES [Figure 01] Author’s own. 2016. Isokon: Minimum Home - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 02] Author’s own. 2016. East Tilbury: Capturing Landscape Memories - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 03] Site Architecture Art Design. 1985. Laurie Mallet House - Ghost Bookshelf blending into the Wall. New York. [Photograph]. Available from: http://www.siteenvirodesign.com/content/mallet-house [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Cover 01] Site Architecture Art Design. 1985. Laurie Mallet House - Entryway with Ghost Artifacts morphing in and out of the Walls. New York. [Photograph]. Available from: http://www.siteenvirodesign.com/content/mallet-house [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 04] Site Architecture Art Design. 1985. Laurie Mallet House - Classical Sculpture, Tree and Trellis melting into the Garden Walls. New York. [Photograph]. Available from: http://www.siteenvirodesign.com/content/mallet-house [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 05] Anon. 2015. Old Photos and Personal Belongings. London. [Photograph]. Available from: https://www.poshtiger.co/blog/21-fun-things-to-do-on-a-rainy-day/ [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 06] Author’s own. 2017. Traditional Indian Fabrics. [Photograph]. [Figure 07] Anon. 2015. Bag and other useful Possessions. New York. [Photograph]. Available from: https://gr.pinterest.com/pin/327496204140743378/ [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 08] Anon. 2015. Camera and other useful Possessions. New York. [Photograph]. Available from: https://gr.pinterest.com/pin/322922235766904002/ [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 09] Author’s own. 2017. Traditional Spices. [Photograph]. [Figure 10] Anon. 2015. Laptop. Paris. [Photograph]. Available from: https://fr.aliexpress.com/popular/notebook-desk-stand.html [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 11] Shamsian, J. 2016. Lack of Furniture. Tokyo. [Photograph]. Available from: http://www.thisisinsider.com/inside-japans-extremely-minimalist-homes-2016-6#thelack-of-furniture-means-more-space-to-stretch-out-14 [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Cover 02] Packing Light. 2015. Makoko - Lagos Lagoon I. Makoko. [Photograph]. Available from: https://warriorwriter.com/2015/01/04/nigeria-express-2-of-4-makoko/ [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 12] Anon. 2014. Torre Daviv - Facade Appropriation. Caracas. [Photograph]. Available from: http://developingsolutions.weebly.com/torre-david.html [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 13] Anon. 2001. Santorini House Typology. The Traditional House in Aegean. Panagiotis & Efi Micheli Corporation. Athens [Illustration]. [Figure 14] Author’s own. 2017. How is Space used in Minimuum Homes. [Illustration].

79


[Figure 15] Author’s own. 2017. Homeless - Territory. [Photo & Illustration]. [Figure 16] Anon. 2016. Makoko - Lagos Lagoon II. Makoko. [Photograph]. Available from: http://www.welt.de/reportage/water/habitat/article158122289/the-bitter-fightfor-nigeria%27s-water-slum.html#Newsletter [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 17] Anon. 1985. A Dwelling for Tokyo Nomad Women. Tokyo. [Photograph]. Available from: http://lowellintheworld.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/nomadism.html [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 18] Keystone/Hulton. 1979. The King family of Milton Keynes receive the Deeds to their Council House from Margaret Thatcher. London. [Photograph]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/26/right-to-buy-margaret-thatcher-david-cameron-housing-crisis [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Cover 03] Earl, S. 2016. Isokon - Interior. London. [Photograph]. Available from: https:// www.wmf.org/blog/sunny-sundays-are-made-modernism-london [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 19] Author’s own. 2017. Memory Facade I - Design Project. [Model]. [Figure 20] Park, J. 2017. Summary Timeline of the Space Standards in England. London. [Illustration]. Available from: http://housingspacestandards.co.uk/assets/space-standards_onscreen.pdf [Accessed 09 July 2017]. [Figure 21] Author’s own. 2017. House Prices & Affordability. [Illustration]. [Figure 22] Author’s own. 2017. Comparison of Space Standards (Europe). [Illustration]. [Figure 23] Author’s own. 2017. Minimum Space Standards (GIA, 2010). [Illustration]. [Figure 24] Author’s own. 2017. Comparison of Space Standards (UK). [Illustration]. [Figure 25] Author’s own. 2017. Concept Diagram I (Living Core) - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 26] Author’s own. 2017. Concept Diagram II (Clusters )- Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 27] Author’s own. 2017. Bata House Typology - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 28] Author’s own. 2017. Cross Unit Structure - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 29] Author’s own. 2017. Memory Facade II - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 30] Author’s own. 2017. Minimum Living Cores - Design Project. [Model]. [Figure 31] Author’s own. 2017. Memory Facade III - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 32] Author’s own. 2017. Cross Unit - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 33] Author’s own. 2017. Memory Facade IV - Design Project. [Illustration]. [Figure 34] Author’s own. 2016. East Tilbury - Landscape. [Photograph].

80


81


82


[Fig 33]

83


84


[Fig 34]

85




Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.