HANS SCHWARZ BASSILA MASTER IN COLLECTIVE HOUSING | PORTFOLIO 2013
HANS SCHWARZ BASSILA MASTER IN COLLECTIVE HOUSING | PORTFOLIO 2013
WORKSHOP LEADERS 01| Juan Herreros 02| Andrea Deplazes 03| Paco Burgos 04| Hrvoje Njiric 05| Cino Zucchi 06| Dietmar Eberle 07| Anne Lacaton
SPECIALTY DIRECTORS 08| María Teresa Díniz 09| Bernardo Ynzenga Dick Van Gameren Andrés Cánovas Carmen Espegel Jesus Leal Ramón Araujo
LIVING IS NOT A MACHINE INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
“Living is not a Machine” represents a clear intention to de-systematize the way we live. De-systemizing doesn’t imply rejecting technology, but liberating the schemes and patterns of living. Evidently, collective housing is a result of several social, political, economical, and cultural forces in which both, social and free market housing dwellings, are carefully engineered to be part of the productive system. We seem to forget that we are designing for people, not machines. People are emotional, diverse, special, and unique beings. As a mediocre excuse, we say that it’s impossible to please everyone and we are blind enough to misunderstand that it is not a matter of the number of rooms, the size of the living room and the optimization of the interior distribution. Its a matter of possibilities. We have learned to live in a certain way. We settle for less. Are we really designing dwellings for the general demand? or is the general demand reacting to the supply? We organize people under the logic of the market even if housing is not like other marketable products. We objectify them without seeing that in fact, we are them. We know that some people want certain things, other people want other things and we end up doing an average that is what nobody wants. We design housing for a “common
domestic dream” but, the only commonness on this collective dream is how different it is. Designing over typologies, types and prototypes, we have been forcing people to live the way us, architects and planners, want them to live. Typologies are rigid models of living that tend to become obsolete within time. Patterns of habitation are certainly imposed by society, but that doesn’t mean those patterns are to prevail. Today people live and group as they please. The “family” model of housing is obsolete, yet dwellings are still designed for this conditions. Some efforts in the late twentieth century showcase differentiation in housing more important than ever before but, is diversity and differentiation in housing the way to meet individual needs for customization?
Is people happier with more space? Do we need flexible? adaptable? resilient? fixed? rigid? disposable? On the following pages you will find part of the work developed during the Master in Collective Housing 2013. Neither this words, or the work that follows are part of a settled way of thinking, they are both part of a series of questions that I hope to answer through my career. It is part of the process that has kindled my interest in exploring alternative methods of design and new patterns of living.
One of the most recurring thoughts in housing design of the last 100 years is the idea of transplanting the traditional and well known qualities of the single house or other forms of low rise housing into larger scale projects with higher densities... In collective housing design we need to find a form of housing that meets individual demands while profiting from the production and scale advantages associated with standard house building. 1 The architect’s ego is reflected when drawing a floor plan by telling people how to arrange their furniture. The possibilities of furniture layouts are so limited that some spaces wouldn’t even work if it is not arranged as indicated. We, as architects, learn that dwellings “should” work in a certain way, we use standards and ideals to provide people with “good” dwellings. Most important is the fact that the long lasting value of a building is not given by the layout of the dwellings, but buy what the building gives to the city 2, since it is the role of the architect to promote and defend the public interests.
1. Standards and Ideals - Dick van Gameren 2. Dietmar Eberle
01
LIVING IN THE XXI CENTURY
WORKSHOP LEADERS Juan Herreros Auxiliadora Gálvez
WORKSHOP TEAM Lucía de Molina Benavides Yoav Elad Roberto Carlucci Hans Schwarz Bassila
This work intends to explore deeply the meaning of the domestic and public realm in Lavapies, Madrid, Under the logic of “the slow(mad)ness” Juan Herreros requests an intervention that brings improvements to the living conditions of Lavapies and opens the possibility for new dwellers. The main concern was to understand and blur the line between the public and the private. Being one of the most dense quarters, the first challenge was to find a place for the project. A demolished building, service patios and the existing habitation strategies gave the starting point for the project.
APPROACH
Occupation and co-habitation strategies are probably the neighborhood’s most characteristic assets. Self managed spaces bring forth an oportunity to the city as a space of possible recognition and are a projection of domestic space into the urban life. Co-habitation schemes allow breaking the traditional housing paradigms and thinking of new forms of habitation. Domesticity can be understood as the ability of oneself to take possesion of a specific space or object through the act of occupation. “The occupation of a space suggests taking possession or control of it. The “okupa”, leading activist of the act of occupying that territory, claims it through its ability to transform anything into its own. To this end it is essential the study and understanding of space, but above all, of the tools of colonization. In these occupations, its common to observe the a clever and resourceful editing of the space. The elements used, usually scarce, are reinterpreted to give a renovated and original spatiality.”1
1. Martin Huberman
CO-HABITATION
With the adaption of structures to dwelling and other kind of activities, co-habitation strategies provide an oportunity to break traditional housing schemes.
UNPREDICTABILITY
Nothing is permanent, a wide variety occupation forms and activities can take place giving freedom for new proposals, only a fixed structure to store tools, instruments and objects for this proposals.
OCCUPATION
Taking advantage of the existing infrastructure, occupation takes place in a very clever and simple principle. Take the most out of a space that has been left as residual... a space that today is vacant.
MECHANIZE SYSTEMIZE AUTOMATIZE //////////////for the city dwellers of the 21st century
/////////////////////////////
93 03
93
=
WINE STORAGE
41 23
41
STUDIO
59212
59
212
9 2520 1
YRARSTORAGE BIL
42 75
42
PARKING
93 23
GNIKRAP
23
2 6105 1
2 61
105
24 33
2GUEST 4 ROOM
11 26
TNER PARKING ROF
55 22
GNIKRAROOM P
12
12
7
STORAGE
4 2654 1
OIDUPARKING TS
61 06
ETAVIRLIBRARY P
90 37
MOOR
37
86 23
EGAROTS
23
80 10
8WINE 0 CELLAR
40 21
YR WINE ELLAG CELLAR
60 20
60
STORAGE
60 16
YRARBIPRIVATE L
73 09
73
ROOM
32 68
32
STORAGE
01 08
RA LLEC ENIW 08
12 04
RA LLEC GALLERY ENIW
02 06
EGAROTS
06
5 0162 1
501
162
33 42
MOOR TSEU42 G
62 11
GNIKFOR RAP RENT
22 55
30 39
ENIW EGAROTS
39
32 14
OIDUTS
14
21295
212
95
02129 5
MOOPARKING R
EGAROLIBRARY TS
7
57 24
21
EGAROTS
21
45124 6
G NIKRA STUDIO P
GNIKRAP
24
32 39
32
PARKING
PROPOSAL PROGRAM 100% 4776 sqm
UNITS
12.5% 604.8 sqm 2300 m続
COLLECTIVE SERVICES 5.7% 270 sqm
FIXED WALL 7%
337.5
TOWER CELLS 53.6% 2560 sqm 160 cells
CIRCULATIONS AND PLATFORMS 21.2% 1003.61
Taking advantage of the existing technological possibilities, multiscalar relations take place within the project. The scales go from the super-public scale to the super-private one going through intermediate spaces that contradict their own nature. A public corridor in a domestic environment. A domestic environment within a public tower.
In resistance to the idea of traditional dwelling types, the project intends to achieve a free occupation of the units an a costume made solution for every dweller. Three general established.
rules
were
1. Every unit has at least 6 meters height. 2. Every unit has direct acces to the public corridors. 3. Every unit is linked directly to a bridge or pasarel.
UNITS 4.20m x 3m
7.30m x 3m
75.6
131.4
113.4
197.1
cu m
cu m
151.2 cu m
cu m
cu m
f
e
d c
a
b
c
d
e
f
b
a
02
18M DEPTH: A TYPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
WORKSHOP LEADERS Andrea Deplazes Fernando Altozano WORKSHOP TEAM Nieves Fernรกndez Silvia Melis Hans Schwarz Bassila
Housing depths were the main discussion in this workshop. As a research studio and an approach to understand housing, every group had a different depth that went from 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 to 18 meters to generate a catalogue of typologies suitable to the extreme conditions given on every depth. Taking good care of efficient circulation, inner perception, lighting and ventilation, the only requirements were to create dwellings that could easily group and become a collective housing project with three different types; 115 sqm, 100 sqm and 85 sqm.
APPROACH
Dealing with an 18 meter depth, the main concern was to take maximum advantage of light and ventilation, not just as workshop requirements, but as a concerns for high indoor environmental quality. A series of explorations made quite evident that this depth could not be solved with a traditional typology, and that higher distances from floor to ceiling were required. Living in an atelier represented a clear intention of openness and freedom, along with the opportunity to propose a different habitation scheme. The paradox of living in an 18 meter depth dwelling with a passing living space and double orientation gave the project an array of distinct characteristics and a self-organizing body. The project can be read as a sequence of stripes that alternate between solid (private) and transparent (social) areas of the dwellings along the entire building. The circulations are inserted within the solid stripe, but as an optimization mechanism a hallow beam is introduced to increase the amount of dwellings that depend on one core.
18 meter depth
Solid / Private
Transparent / Social
+
=
Dwelling
Axonometric Projection of a single standing prototype.
PROPOSAL
6 2,2 3,8 2,2 6
2,2
FLOOR PLAN
3,1
2,7
2,1
3,7
2,1
1,8
GROUND FLOOR
FIRST FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
Conceptual sequence of the same space through the day | Doors open and closed; apppear and disappear.
Implantation strategy in a 100 x 100 plot: Low Rise | High Density
03
PLAYING IN THE CITY
WORKSHOP LEADERS Paco Burgos Javier Malo de Molina WORKSHOP TEAM Yi Chi Wang Roberto Carlucci Hans Schwarz Bassila
A bicycle tour to Madrid RĂo was the starting point for this workshop. Paco Burgos made a close up to a smaller, yet important grain of the city; play. Dealing with the inbetween space and the common ground of cities and neighborhoods, the request was to explore deepley the idea of playing in the city. With some general references of small scale interventions in Madrid RĂo and an introductory lecture on play, no requirements were given, but to develop a playground proposal for Embajadores, Madrid.
APPROACH
A space for playing is not an object or a device, it starts with the atmosphere. For example; a forest is a perfect playground, because both environment and object compose the playground atmosphere.
Play - The importance of play as part of the city, not as an isolated concept destined for kids in playgrounds. Play is everywhere, and is for everyone.
Today, Cities face great challenges in terms of space and infrastructure. We chose infrastructure as a starting point, since infrastructure is the basis of the city. In the natural scenery, continuity of the surface is important. Landscape in the city should be able to reflect this continuity to allow the city be part of a whole. “Another favorite concept of the CIAM theorists and others is the separation of recreation from everything else. This has crystallized in our real cities in the form of playgrounds. The playground, asphalted and fenced in, is nothing but a pictorial acknowledgement of the fact that “play” exists as an isolated concept in our minds. It has nothing to do with the life of play itself. Few self-respecting children will even play in a playground. Play itself, the play that children practice, goes on somewhere different everyday. One day it may be indoors, another day in a friendly gas station, another day in a derelict building, another day down by the river, another day on a construction site which has been abandoned for the weekend. Each of these play activities, and the objects it requires forms a system. It is not true that these systems exist in isolation, cut off from the other systems in the city. The different systems overlap one another, and they overlap many other systems besides. The units, the physical places recognized as play places, must do the same.”1 1. Christopher Alexander
Infrastructure - Cities face great challenges in terms of space and infrastructure. We chose infrastructure as a starting point, since infrastructure is the basis of the city. Infrastructure are the bones of the city.
Landscape - In the natural scenery, continuity of the surface is important. Landscape in the city should be able to reflect this continuity to allow the city be part of a whole, allowing play to happen in every dimention without fragmenting, dividing, or separating.
Atlante carrying the world vrs. an icecream cone | Play vrs. Infrastructure
PROPOSAL Filling | atmosphere vegetation
Filling | terrain Filling | light material Filling | pipes, mechanical use (water recycling) Border | ceramic tiles Border | concrete
Border | bonding material
Pillar | prefab concrete joint Pillar | mechanical space
Pillar | structure
Pillar | joint
For us, play should be as intrinsical to the city as infrastructure. The idea of one element representing two things; play and infrastructure, linked like never before. One element providing both device and environment. Using the principle of addition the project has as a result a new playscape atmosphere that has 3 levels of interaction; The ground, the cone and the canopy.
From a single standing structure to a surface.
Assembling and construction.
PROTOTYPE We applied the project in an existing parking in an area of the center of Madrid that has a big immigrant population. The separation and segregation of the immigrant population is not just related to the social barriers but also to the characteristics of the built environment. In this specific case, a parking lot underground fragments the neighborhood a creates a physical barrier between the immigrant population and the locals. The opportunity to have a parking is still allowed, but a new environment is produced.
Application of the prototype.
Structural Grid
Surface
+
=
0.00 m
- 0.50 m - 3.00 m
- 2.00 m
Surface and structural module combination.
04
LIVING WITH/ LIKE ANIMALS
WORKSHOP LEADERS Hrojev Njiric José María Sánchez García WORKSHOP TEAM Lucía de Molina Benavides Gabriela Macías Rafael Medrano Hans Schwarz Bassila
Living with/like animals was a 5 day experimental workshop leaded by Hrojev Njiric in which understanding the needs of the peculiar clients was fundamental. Polar bears, otters, crabs, goats and quetzales are some of the clients that each group worked for, and the inhabitants of Zootopia. What questions to ask to our client to understand what he wants/needs? How can humans relate to animals in terms of their activities, living patterns, movement, etc? Is it possible to dwell humans and animals together? Are today’s cathedrals an example of living with/ like animals? This are some of the questions that appeared through the workshop, not all of them are solved and there are many more questions to come.
APPROACH After all the requirements of the client were studied, a long list of questions were the starting point. What could be the minimum dwelling? Is it possible to create a dense model of housing? How can we recreate the atmosphere of a cloud forest? The main elements of the living atmosphere are then translated into materiality, understanding that their role, more than constructive, will now play an important role in the habitat. The cloud forest atmosphere is created with a little help from technology, but the rest of the ecosystem works as in the natural environment. Quetzales live in forest clearings. In order to have clearings, density needs to be created.
“TO CONCEIVE A BUILDING AS IF PLANNING A FOREST.� Junya Ishigami
THE CLIENT
QUETZAL
PHARAMACHRUS MOCINNO
MR. Q
ABOUT BIRD OF FREEDOM GUATEMALA’S NATIONAL BIRD EASILY STRESSED PLANNING BIRD
LIFE CYCLE
LIVES UP TO 20 YEARS MATING STARTS AT 3 YEARS OLD TAKES PLACE ONCE A YEAR EACH YEAR THEY MAKE A NEW NEST MONOGAMOUS SPECIE KIDS STAY CLOSE TO THEIR PARENTS
CLOUD FOREST ENVIRONMENT HIGH LEVEL OF HUMIDITY PARTIALLY ROT WOOD ROOMS 100% PRIVACY FAMILY OF 6 TO 8 INTERIOR GARDEN NOT LESS THAN 2,000 SQM HEIGHT OF THE DWELLING MINIMUM 8 METERS
REQUESTS
CLOUD
HUMIDITY
LIVING
MOSSES
EPIPHYTES
ECOSYSTEM
TREES
Environment and atmosphere diagram
STRUCTURE
EAT 32 m
NEST 24 m
POSE 8m
CEDRO ROJO
1.50
HELECHO ARBORESCENTE
1.10
AGUACATILLO
ENCINA MEXICANA AZUL
1.00
0.66
1.50
1.10
1.00
0.60
0.45
0.30
METERS
The tree / structure as an ecosystem
MIRROR
VIEW
TREE ABSTRACTION
NEST AND FOOD
Polyfuctional columns Tree/Structure
POSE
MOIST PRODUCER
LIGHT
MIRROR
PERISCOPE
ECOSYSTEMS
HOUSING + INFRASTRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
PUBLIC SPACE + OPEN PROGRAM Layering and Isometric projection of the proposal.
THE MASTER PLAN After each group exposed the needs and requirements of their clients, a small working session was conducted in which the class together took main decisions of the master plan. The drawing you see under this text is the result of this working session. As it was mentioned before, Zootopia’s population is composed by otters, crabs, polar bears, goats and quetzals. A 50m x 50m city block was created since all animals needed similar dimensions to live. This was the first step on designing the city. Zoning was quite easy, since crucial parameters were assigned to the characteristics of the territory and the needs of the population. Polar bears dwellings are located in the ocean, on the other extreme are the goats that live in a climbing wall/ building that protects the city. The high rise crab towers are located close to the water for their functional needs and for their scale, since the canal area is the widest of all. Otters on the other hand require direct contact with the water.
POLAR BEARS ISLANDS
OTTER HOUSE
QUETZAL CATHEDRAL
MOLE
GOATS
Collective model of Zootopia.
05
INHABITED SCREENS
WORKSHOP LEADERS Cino Zucchi Belén Hermida
WORKSHOP TEAM Borja Navarro de Aldecoa Hans Schwarz Bassila
This workshop aim was not to design a complete housing project in all of its parts, but an exploration of the buffer or interface between the private realm and the collective one. “The scale of the single living unit and one of the city, the need of a personal realm and the search for a shared space are not able to dialogue directly without a mediating element. This element is the depth of the building envelope, which also has to perform a number of quite sophisticated tasks: modulate the light of the sun in relation to the latitude and geographical orientation; protect the interior from excessive hot and cold wind, rain, noise, pollution; create inhabitable open air spaces for the dwellings, including fragments of nature; provide visual privacy to the interiors; act as asocial mean of communication; give a meaningful form to the collective urban spaces.”
1. Cino Zucchi - Inhabited Screens Workshop
APPROACH The plot assigned within the master plan was 14 x 20 with a 14 story hight. Being the tallest building, but also with a corner position in the plot, it is the landmark or emblem of the complex. For this reason, the building that is turned inside out, plays with the scale an homogeneity at the same time. The screen was thought as the core of the building, giving the strongest and some of the most demanding activities on the facade. Making a thick inhabited buffer, a series of loggias take place al around as a filtering device for sun, wind and views.
Cino Zucchi proposal for the 2012 Venice Bienale used then as a master plan for the workshop.
Conceptual progression and possible division of the dwellings.
North Facade
Constructive detail exploration.
West Facade
South Facade
East Facade
06
HOUSING: A METHOD
WORKSHOP LEADERS Dietmar Eberle Victor Olmos WORKSHOP TEAM Hans Schwarz Bassila SPECIAL THANKS Silvia Melis Yichi Wang
Leaded by Dietmar Eberle, former Dean of The School of Architecture at ETH Zurich and current professor, on a top to bottom approach, this workshop main focus was on the method to project housing, as buildings are part of the public capital of cities. Exploring the life span of buildings and their capability to evolve through time (as people, trends and cities do), this 5 day workshop focuses on those elements that make a building resilient. The step by step method went from the maximum volume by regulation to keener analysis of the facade and structure in relation to place/context. The Program was added later, knowing that it is the most variable component of a building.
APPROACH
Working with a physical model since the begining, the starting point is the maximum volume by regulation. After, it followed a series of modifications according to its context. As a gesture to the city, the project opens a space in the front (area connected with the square) of the ground floor. After modeling the volume, the Structural Module that best suited this deep plan building is 8.10m. The facade goes through a process of analysis. The context gives information about how should the building openings be. The percentage of open and closed of the neighboring constructions give us an idea of the porosity that the building should have in terms of the body of the building and the ground floor. Three documents are developed in detail. The physical 3D model, the facade and the plan.
BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING 85% OPAQUE 82% OPAQUE 80% OPAQUE 83% OPAQUE 15% TRANSPARENT 18% TRANSPARENT 20% TRANSPARENT 17% TRANSPARENT GROUND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR 52% OPAQUE 60% OPAQUE 52% OPAQUE 60% OPAQUE 48% TRANSPARENT 40% TRANSPARENT 48% TRANSPARENT 40% TRANSPARENT
Neighboring constructions facade analysis.
PROPOSAL
14.10 M
10.90 M
7.70 M
4.50 M
0.00 M
1.35 M
2.70 M
1.35 M
2.70 M
1.35 M
2.70 M
1.35 M
2.70 M
1.35 M
2.70 M
1.35 M
2.70 M
1.35 M
1
2 8. 10 M
3 8. 10 M
4 8. 10 M
5 8. 10 M
6 8. 10 M
7 8. 10 M
8 8.10 M
9 8.10 M
10 8.10 M
11 8.10 M
12 8.10 M
8. 10 M
A
8. 10 M
B
C
1
2 8. 10 M
96 sqm
3 8. 10 M
4 8. 10 M
5 8. 10 M
6 8. 10 M
7 8. 10 M
8 8.10 M
9 8.10 M
76 sqm
A
DUPLEX
8.10 M
128 sqm
DUPLEX
128 sqm
DUPLEX
86 sqm
DUPLEX
128 sqm
DUPLEX
128 sqm
10
11
8.10 M
8.10 M
96 sqm
96 sqm
12 8.10 M
126 sqm
DUPLEX
86 sqm
8. 10 M
B DUPLEX
140 sqm
DUPLEX
128 sqm
DUPLEX
140 sqm
DUPLEX
128 sqm
C 96 sqm
59 sqm
86 sqm
86 sqm
108 sqm
07
DESIGNING FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
WORKSHOP LEADERS Anne Lacaton Diego GarcĂa-SetiĂŠn
WORKSHOP TEAM Antonio G. de los Salmones Jose Alberto Bethencourt Hans Schwarz Bassila
In a non-traditional approach, this workshop leaded by Anne Lacaton (Lacaton & Vassal) used as projection tool the process of film making. With a deeper interest in the atmosphere than the floor plan, the intention was to understand the consequences of any decision taken in the design process as a sequence. The request was to produce a short film that went from the inside of the dwelling, incrementing scales gradually, to the relationship with the city. All the images were to be produced from fragments of other images. This work was developed in 5 days.
The existing is a chanc layers.
We expose ourselves separates us. Space the walls. Here I am, w private, in the domest we go everywhere, in passwords.
ce, an addition of stories, lives, and
s, unprotected, no doors, nothing is extended, liberated, we remove with the others in our house, in the tic, in the public. Breaking through, n one direction and the other. No Extract of the manifesto “UMBRALES” by Antonio G. de los Salmones, José Alberto Bethencourt, Hans Schwarz Bassila
1
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
19
20
21
22
5
6
7
8
14
15
16
17
23
24
25
26
9
18
Frame 1 | Introspective view of the city by Hans Schwarz Bassila
Frame 15 | The social space by Hans Schwarz Bassila
Frame 22 | Other opportunities in exiting buildings by Hans Schwarz Bassila
Frame 26 | The city that we have built by Antonio G. de los Salmones
08
SLUM UPGRADING IN PARISOPOLIS
SPECIALTY DIRECTOR María Teresa Díniz Belén Gesto SPECIALTY TEAM Nieves Fernández Carolina Rodas Gabriela Macías Hans Schwarz Bassila
Maria Teresa Diniz, former manager of the Housing Department of Sao Paulo and current manager of FAUUSP Cidades has approached the specialty topic in the huge favela of Paraisopolis. Belen Gesto was Prof. Diniz’s local partner and Luís Basabe was invited for the crits. City infrastructure, social problems, private & public property management, sewage and drainage systems, local building construction were some of the layers that were covered during these fantastic week.
APPROACH The methdology to follow in slum upgrading consists en superposing layers of information that will feed a removal map. When removing, the materiality of the house and the number of families in one plot are determining. The most important layers for the removal map are; 1. Risk 2. Access / Dreinage 3. Sewage 4. Water 5. Urbanism
488 OF 1240 FAMILIES RELOCATED
In this case, arround 1/3 of the families have been relocated. The cost of doing this considering both re-location and upgrading is aproximateley â‚Ź21 million (August 2013). The intention was to integrate the slum to the city in terms of mobility, infrastructure, and social. As well as the relocation of families in risk areas. The schematic proposal can be seen on the following pages. REGULAR SETTLEMENTS
SLUM SETTLEMENT
70 HAB/HECT ZONE ZONE I ZONE II ZONE III ZONE IV ZONE V ZONE VI
590.43 HAB/HECT
FAMILIES REMOVED STAYED 49 29 50 34 53 85 133 0 33 504 170 100 488 752
FAMILY REMOVED FAMILY UPGRADED
INVERSION 135,000 15,000
TOTAL 78 84 138 133 537 270 1240
488 R$ 65,880,000.00 0 R$ 0.00 R$ 65,880,000.00
78% 78%
22% 22%
BRICK CONSTRUCTION
WOOD CONSTRUCTION
FAVELA RENOVATION CURRENT SITUATION
LEGEND
EXISTING HOUSES STREETS AND CAVITIES RIVER
0m
10
20
40
80
FAVELA RENOVATION REMOVAL MAP
LEGEND
PRESERVED PARTIALLY REMOVED REMOVED
0m
10
20
40
80
FAVELA RENOVATION DRAINAGE PROPOSAL
LEGEND
EXISTING NETWORK PROPOSED NETWORK RIVER
0m
10
20
40
80
FAVELA RENOVATION SEWAGE PROPOSAL
LEGEND
EXISTING NETWORK PROPOSED NETWORK RIVER
0m
10
20
40
80
FAVELA RENOVATION WATER SYSTEM PROPOSAL
LEGEND
EXISTING NETWORK PROPOSED NETWORK RIVER
0m
10
20
40
80
09
FROM MORPHEMS TO URBANISM
SPECIALTY DIRECTOR Bernardo Ynzenga Acha
SPECIALTY TEAM Borja Navarro de Aldecoa Pablo Miguel Marcet Jose Alberto Bethencourt Hans Schwarz Bassila
Taking place in the area between Delicias, Legazpi and Atocha, this currently low dense area requires a new urban plan for 44.3 Ha that are public property. Experimenting with morphems, intentions, densities, uses and potential, Bernardo Ynzenga’s 5 day workshop focused on projecting urban developments from the smalles part of the city, knowing that morphems (segments) are the structuring elements in the long term for urban projects of this magnitude.
APPROACH
Having 44.3 Ha of unbuilt area in a central location of Madrid, with direct access and connection to Madrid’s Central Train Station Atocha (16 million passengers every year, the buissiest train station in Spain), Méndez Álvaro Bus station (connects with the south of Spain), direct connection with Barajas T4 (a main airport in europe), and direct acces to 3 metro stations, and to the cercanías train (transportation to peripheric areas of Madrid) gave the name to this ambitious project, since its potential of connectivity not only to the rest of Spain, but to the world gave his ambitious name. “La Puerta de España” (Door to Spain). Puerta de España is an urban development implemented to solve the area between Atocha, Delicias, and Legazpi focusing in six themes; transportation, social and cultural, public space, economy, environment, and housing. It’s character is detached from the existing urban trace yet integrates all urban activities in the area through a public space system. The goal of this project is to make the area become a main economic and cultural segment of the city by profiting from its proximity to all mayor various transportation nodes around it with 390,000 daily passengers moving in the area. The existing situation is one of a previous industrial zone which is slowly being converted into tertiary and housing uses. Its main problem being the intense railway system activity previously and currently happening in its limits. Previous activity has created big residual spaces that break the urban fabric, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic while current railway lines only dither the previous further. This has isolated the many interventions done to activate the area, such as parks, museums, promenades, etc., and made its progress into an active and vibrant neighborhood slow.
PASSENGERS PER YEAR 16 MILLION EASY ACCESS MENDEZ ÁLVARO BARAJAS T4 PRÍNCIPE PÍO CHAMARTÍN
STRATEGIC LOCATION REINA SOFÍA MADRID RÍO EL RETIRO PASEO DEL PRADO
SITE AREA
44.3 HA
BUILT AREA
31.5 HA
BUILT FOOTPRINT
7.5 HA
DESIRED DENSITY 250 HAB/HA SQM/HAB 17 SQM TOTAL BUILT AREA 31.5 HA
BUILT INDEX 0.71 SQM/SQM PERVIOUS AREA 32% 14.1 HA
LINES OF ACTION DIAGNOSIS
STRATEGIES
Intervention Ă rea
TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
Lack of intermodal and pedestrian friendly connections.
Inaccessible cultural and social infrastructure and equipment.
New linear park.
Promote Intermodal connections
Main Drivers
Regenerate existing cultural uses
Link with public space
Borders
PUBLIC SPACE
ECONOMY
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Neglected open spaces and missing links between the active public spaces and the site.
Waste of economic potential of the area considering its privileged location.
Breaks the city green network and continuity of the park and public space system.
Connect to public space network
Work on the railway border
Connections
Dense mixed use development
Benefit from connectivity potential
Connection to existing green network
Implantation Strategy
Native vegetation & reforestation plan
HOUSING
Low density / Low rise.
High density/Low rise housing
Diversify dwellings
Proposan Extention
MORPHEMS
A
A+A
B
A+B
A+B+C
C
B+A+C
A+C
B+C
PUERTA DE ESPAÑA
| MADRID CENTRAL TRAIN STATION Puerta de Atocha
| URBAN PROPOSAL
| CONNECTION El Retiro Urban Park
DWELLING SPACE
| GASTRONOMIC MUSEUM
2,460 UNITS | TRAIN MUSEUM
196,800 SQM
| PROGRAMATIC PROMENADE
| REGIONAL LIBRARY Joaquin Leguina
OFFICE SPACE
| MUNICIPAL MUSIC SCHOOL
| MUNICIPAL PARK
| SPORT FACILITIES | LINEAR PARK | CERCANÍAS STATION
144,000 SQM RETAIL SPACE
| WATER SQUARE | SPORT FACILITIES
27,144 SQM
| BUS STATION /METRO STATION Méndez Álvaro
PEOPLE 222 HAB/HA 9,840 NEW INHABITANTS + FLOATING POPULATION
| METRO STATION Planetarium
| PLANETARIUM
PLANETARIUM PARK
HANS SCHWARZ BASSILA MASTER IN COLLECTIVE HOUSING PORTFOLIO 2013
CONTACT Hans Schwarz Bassila p. +(502) 47699600 e. hschwarz06@gmail.com w. www.hans-schwarz.com