Imprint_Group 3

IMPRINT

ALESSIO PARRELLA CHARLES CHADWICK ENIS DEMIRI GIUSEPPE FOCARELLI ISAAC PECKOVER TIM MARGITICH

CONTENT PAGE 1 Front Page 2 Content Page 3 - 10 Group Research 11 - 20 Precedent Study 21 Space 10 Survey 22 Community Design 23 Design Brief 24 - 33 Stage 1 Conceptual Design Back Page

Page 2

RESEARCH co-living vs cohousing, privacy

CO-LIVING and COHOUSING are two kinds of communal living.

Coliving is a way of living where people share rooms, bathrooms ammenities and such with others, whereas co-housing is like an apartment type situation where people are situated within their own rooms and spaces and share the house and not necessarily having to socially interact with others. While this difference seems small, almost not-important, but the reasons the two exist are very important.

Charles Chadwick a1759275

60%

50-100 People 4.1% 25-50 People 13.4%

Co-living and cohousing exist due to economic needs and individual privacy needs, some people don't want to share, some people cant afford to have privacy and some people are fine with sharing.

Of course, in a communal living situation nothing is as simple as just sharing, some people want to just share a communal space, some people are fin with sharing bedrooms but not bathrooms, and of course endless combinations of wanting to share and not.

60% of people want to share with people from different walks of life.

4-10 People 46.4%

10-25 People 33%

Most people on the Co-Living 2030 study state that their ideal co-living situation is betweeen 4 and 25 people.

Page 3

67% of people want set private spaces with clear boundaries

Its important that because individual people have individual needs, we must accomodatr those needs, so I decided that because the community must include 50 people, I would split the housing into 6 parts. 46.4 percent of people only want to share with 4-10 people, so 2 of my housing structures will accomodate 4 people, each with a room to themselves, 2 of my houses will house 10 people each room housing either 1, 2 or 5 people. and 2 housing structures holding 15 people. this housing method guarantees that peoples individual needs for privacy and community will be met as closely as possible.

Charles Chadwick a1759275

The Community: wheelchair access

socially inclusive

nature lovers

50 people, including 10 kids

67%

6 housing structures, 1 recreation centre

30 car parks Page 4

Oosterwold Co-living Complex Architects: Bureau SLA | Area: 1450 m² | Year: 2017 Text description provided by the architects: ‘In the rural area of Oosterwold, artist Frode Bolhuis dreamed of an alternative way of living. He asked architects Peter van Assche and Mathijs Cremers to design his dream house on a one-hectare potato field. The only problem was his very limited budget. To find the solution the architects came up with two preconditions to make the project possible: they suggested finding friends to join the project, since it is a lot cheaper to build several houses at the same time than just one. Luckily, Frode was able to find eight friends who shared his dream. The second precondition was that only the exterior would be designed, leaving the families complete freedom to decide on the interior. The limited budget became key feature in the project and resulted in a straightforward 100-meter-long slab containing a row of nine unique dwellings. The position of the building on the side of the plot leaves maximum space for the community garden.’

Page 11

PENDA: URBAN NEST

Charles Chadwick a1759275

Public Public/ Private Private/ Living Stairway/ Circulation

Floor Space

%

Dedicated Space

Cubes

Colour

SPATIAL CONFIGURATION

SHANGHAI MINI-LIFE EXPOSITION

14

12

45%

3 6

12% 36%

3 7

This is a suitable model for studying co-living as the structure is allowed to change, to breathe as the number and types of residents will ultimately change. This organic type of design is, although simple, incredibly effective.

2 Page 12

As part of a design challenge and mini-life exposition set by mini, Penda, an architectural firm designed a ‘mini’ way of co-living, a way that gives people public spaces, private spaces and spaces for which they can decide for themselves.

Co-living is meant to be a way for the community to have control over their home and the way they live and this design encourages just that, with a very fluid, ever-changing potential of what their community can be arranged as/ for.

structure for private or public use.

The arrangement of the urban nest encourages a fluid circulation, ever more so by the grating used by the walls which allows residents to look through the structure and let light and air through. The grating is open in places allowing residents to walk through most points allowing freedom of movement.

The Penda Urban Nest is a series of modular cube steelframes, put together to suit the communities needs, for the sake of the exposition, the structure was assembled for three adults, an architect, a dancer, and a photographer.

The frames give each a twosquare area of floor space, with the architect's room having a vertical floor accessed by ladder. Shared spaces include a library, cafe, kitchen, dining room and various pod-like installments separated from the main

Charles Chadwick a1759275

Page 13

My Ideal Co-Living Community: in

The

space

I am

W ho would be living the space? co-t il ling that oot ng at will be u sed by young and old entrepren eurs. As ong a slhey i l l al share that o ne com mon aspect, their ag e s irreleva nt. I chose i focus on a space for en trepreneurs as ive th e s ame festyle so it li l w ou d be easie.r toacoorrwnoda1e for a wide ran ge o f people. Other than l n spaoe wil th ei r a ge. tt'iei r sexual o rientation i s also irrel evant. th e lv i i g have a m x of women and men. i

to

many

What will

the communil)' need? Th e communit y will need plenty of ope n area spaces to WOil i n . The d esign of the bu din g will try and il accomm odat e this by having different areas for thes e entrepreneurs to get their wo,t done.. Due to th e areas being o pen instead of private. it w ill g v i e the young and o ld en trepreneurs t h e opportunity interact with each ott'ler. This b8)g one of the ma or j fo cuses for the s p a ce . lt's a major focus as we are bying to push to r a v ery nte ractive space so lhat everyo n e ca n help e ach other and propel i eachother even furthe.r n to their own careers. i

wort

to

Other tha n wort: are a s . the g roup o f entrepreneurs will also n e ed a place fo r them to d e oad from t t'ie r bu sy wort: spaces. Therefore, there will i l also be an array of ·getaway" styled areas for them enjoy an d d e oad l from This is i� as it giv.es the busy and hardwor ti n g peo p e l an opportunity oonnect with the area thatthey are in and relax.

wort:.

to

to

Who would manage die area? En trepreneurs are usually quite organised and wort oriented peop e. They a.r e very good time l ma n agement and t he refore WOIAd also b e a b e manage the � ivin g l l area tog ettler. They may a so even do this more effectively than others l and w ould b e ab e to st ck to strict schedu es ke using battvooms and li l i l kitchen s in tt'ie rdesq\ated times. i

at

to

How doff lhe community connect? Th e community COMecisthrough com e up tt'i ei r w or k . Th ey a!I have one thing in common and tt'lat's with tt'le nex.t best idea. En tre pren ews usoalty pay m on ey meet a n d ta k vi.1h o1h er entrepren eurs to share and adva nce their care er s . l Th erefore. having a grcq> o f them vi ng together wou ld expooentialty li ncrease their work d e as and tt'ie r overall time n the area. i i i i

to to

Page 14

THE COLLECTIVE OLD OAK LOl«JON, UK

.... .....

�----- ..,,_.....,,,,, ..... illn-Nd,.,.....,. pdlllalll ,.___..,_,�--�---••,...._..__ ,ws... _..,_.... .,_..,-_,...,_ ......... II....,

OI'..,....,___, ....,. ____,_,,......_el.._,._,-, ..,..,.,.,. .................,_..,. ... � ....... -.. �-................. _ ... .....,...,.d.li,... �-h•-,.1

..... ��011:10 ... ill ... .._._11 ... htd .. .od!IIIDHbil:.,-,ii t,__,..,_.�_,

-.....e.....v,-.... ...... bdcll....

O.�bh�----ID�«leilal_,�__.-t.1�.,,,._.._. ._.. ....-di� d prit-. Ml,o .- 'MM...,!Wf9,---..

eA:obcadl

___..., .._ ...... ,ro...i:

.....

----�,......

...,.,_..,_..,

... � _, ........... �IM<I .......

�-no...--.,..,__,_�....__ fl.,___

MI IOOi:fo ..... It. ...... it,_..... ID� twf,w, .. ._,idlllll ..-,:,e ti,:,!._, ID .._,INIII I,..._._ 1D ccubUII "" 1.., ba-..114.,_....-_ wulllf Wil:NM nd M=hc!liiil'I. � Wfii/;ti�� dhdJylD....,._ p Clld'wl......-­ ............... w111111i1-.111tidl .....1t'IINf ....... MOOdtMd. _ _.. ..... - ..._ b � n., � ...S...... � � - �I ....... lhM _. eoc"e'hlblhen_d .... llOtW--=-,• ....... d.. ptqjlcl.n. ................,_d.. liwlflllll-.0----"'•-.......__•'-lle!Otb'°'""'_,..._... .. __ ....,IDll,,.oo.u .iilr.ond ............. d.. _

....,._._.hcdU.._.lrdiilO,it,...s---��-

CIMllllil,a lioo t I It..__., .......... ..,...... ,,,,............. ��,odlllll,d_,._,,llfl4�--I .. ._ lol-d h .._.olh � .......... ....,.__,�bl...._. _ _,_ fits -.fflllr ,.,_ -h ID., ....... .,.. b......_'a,�

,,,,.......,.,.,.,,,,.lloffl...,

llie�•-htllll'nd_ll._.,._�-----""----'ll'dlw--,..1_...lolb_,__:o;. M b'��....,_ hMbiltoo..1D1 .... dU'l..,_._,...-,..c,.,..,.._ID_,,..,ID ... Mellll,1fl4�d ,_.._...�•O-_,.,..,.__�__,lllif9!)'.,dlllu,.,__ff1Mt'al..._.._�_...,...ID� ---� .. ,..._....... _IDltwtolwrHW.••.....

1-Jb.,.__...,_,.rr..dlll,1---� ..,_...

�.-

All room features: �

c;J

S.0011'-.W.-+l

,_ ·-

�·t'I-..-

� "" ..-"'""' 5) C'"u•• t,,,Ol;l."t lJ

I!]

•---t.�-.. ... �bi.lb�

u.U-d,11\fe

Page 15

IKEA SHARED LIVING

I PERSON

Giuseppe Focarelli

II PERSON

III PERSON

IIII PERSON

Page 16

The shared-living model also aims to answer another major and growing problem facing today’s society, loneliness.

Through design, the project envisions cross-generational shared living communi-ties, and combines private living with shared spaces to encourage community in-volvement and greater sociability.

Designed as a modular building system, the project would be pre-fabricated, mass produced and flat packed to keep construction costs low.

“We seek to finance the construction through partners looking for long-term invest-ments — like pension funds, future-oriented companies and municipalities — and combine it with more democratic setups inspired by community land trusts and co-operatives.

“This would allow for cheaper homes to enter the market and secure the interests of the community.”

The concept explores new ways of home ownership through creating what it refers to as a form of housing co-operative.

“With significantly lower monthly rents and more disposable income, this unique legal setup would allow residents to buy ‘shares’ in the property—when they want to and when they can.

“This would get rid of expensive down payments upfront alongside interest rates which limit first time buyers from entering the housing market.

“Over time, the property would be owned by the community, and residents would be able to cash in on the profits.”

The project would include a monthly rate for residents on essentials such as rent, electricity, water, heating and shared facilities.

Giuseppe Focarelli

Page 17

LTJosai Shared House

LT Josai Shared House is a co-living house in Nagyoga-shi, Japan that manages to accomplish a lot in a surprisingly little amount of space.

The house includes 13 bedrooms, each measuring 12.4m2, maintaining a large amount of shared space on multiple levels.

The building was designed in such a way that minimal space was wasted. There is a large dining room and kitchen, but nestled in between large areas like these, there are smaller areas where residents can be out of their rooms, yet still alone.

Naruse Inokuma Architects made sure to design the private and public spaces indipendant of eachother in an effort to strike the best balance between them. The architects have cleverly woven in differing ceiling heights, some quite tall, to give the spaces a very open feel, rather than cramming in as much as possible.

Isaac Peckover a1731661

Page 18

LT Josai Shared House does something else interesting in that it is a modular design in disguise. at a foundational level, the house was desiged in blocky sections of public/private space, then each of those places was designed individually, creating an interconnected house that feels organic, but is still modular.

Isaac Peckover a1731661

Page 19

PRECEDENCE ROAM CO-LIVING IN BALI

The vision for this place was to create community. A model of a micro society where people find their own space for privacy as well as places of gathering, exchange, movement and education, the structure we had found prior to it's make over already had a great deal of that desired spatial configuration we find today.

The inner court yard, surrounded by 3 run down apartment buildings, formed the starting point for surgical and effective alteration of floor plans by adding more components, knocking down walls, opening solid concrete walls, adding bathrooms and placing large windows that would allow for enough light, fresh air and exciting views towards its surroundings.

Roam is an urban place, and its density one of the key drivers to bring people together closely. We gave these places of gathering a new Roof on top of the buildings, connected them with a bridge, extensive deck space, cafe, bar, restaurant, lounge and other recreational areas. Also the central pool, the recently completed community kitchen and downstairs garden bar offer active areas for guests and visitors.

Balinese life around built structure is that of community through density.

Taking the model of a traditional Balinese compound to another level, the feeling of family as an organism of exchange and life was always a key driver in the design for Roam. ‘All under one roof ’ was another key design driver. The efficient canopy structure spans across all shared spaces. Different opacities through a range of materials such as bamboo, tin and poly carbonate turn the place into a light, yet protected outpost high up, overlooking its surrounding.

The V shaped columns, the low pitched ceilings, and the clustered segments of the canopy have an Asian, reductive appeal to reply to its surrounding in a contemporary way, rather that mimicking a traditional building style or materials The Roam community finds a place of its collective and togetherness that will grow throughout time. This means also that the place can grow, overgrow, adapt, age and change in the months and years to come. The architecture gives opportunity to add exciting new components such as meeting rooms, offices and lecture rooms, canopies, bridges and more garden space.

TIM MARGITICH A1814887

Page 20

SURVEY RESULTS Survey results taken from the “Onesharedhouse 2030” on line survey into co living revealed some interesting results.

Given that people who choose to live in a community environment want to do so to “share” aspects of their life, personal space and privacy still rank highly as those aspects of their life they want to maintain.

58% of people surveyed regard their private space as off limmits to others in the community and 39% regard it acceptable to share upon being asked.

This is similar in the results for “Tolerance”.

Most surveyed, regarded Garden and community areas, Common rooms, dining and kitchen areas as acceptable shared areas all around 10-11%.

TOLERANCE GARDENS AND OPEN SPACE 11% WI FI AND INTERNET 10% COMMON ROOM 9%

KITCHEN AREA 8% COMMON DINING 8%

www.presentationgo.com

Looking at the survey as a whole, those elements that rank highly, apart from privacy,are those issuses of community ownership and a sense of belonging .

Having a say in the mangement of the community and also having the abilty to select new members of the “assembly”rated at 73% of those surveyed on this issue.

The abilty to share costs on energy, cleaning and utilities with the provision to pay extra for communual services which may be centrally located such as laundry, general cleaning or even day care were important to most surveyed when considering community living.

When looking at the Pros and cons within the survey it is the elements of increased opportunities to socialise (39%) and the abilty to share costs and have a greater value in the housing (20%) that rank highly on the Pros side whilst the lack of privacy (35%) is the predominant element

Most surveyed regarded professionals with a background in Design ior Architecture best suited to the development of the overall community concept and that management of the community would best be suited to those who have ownership .

Page 21

SHARING MODEL Our community model si largely based upon the conceptual “Co-Housing” models rather than that of the Co-Living modules more represented in high density areas of cities where land is more of a premium.

Co- Housing is dependant upon a central community area, genrally located within a geographically central area of the development.

Within the central community area, there will be spaces ranging from semi-private to open public areas.

The more open areas of the hub would be the dining, kitchen and community hall sections but in the immediate areas attached would be those more functioning areas offering gym, working rooms, private reflectionareas , studio rooms.

This community hub would be the focus of sharing with semi private nooks where people can still enjoy a degree of privacy whilst still being engaged within the main community area.

A central parking lot would be provided where shared electric vehicles could be made to members of the community.

Central shared laundry would be located as would other services such as child minding etc.

The vertical integration of the living modules with the community area would also assist with the sharing of services to a centrally located hub.

Page 22

SPATIAL ANALYSIS In order that the shared model be successful it is most important to enure that “spacially” the development be designed to ensure that all the requirements of a shared community can be achieved and maintained through the design of the community layout.

Our development is dependent on groups of housing modules, with their own degree of private gardens and retreats within the public areas, be linked to all housing modules and the community centre.

This would offer the community an area of like minded people or those with similar interests such as young couples and single professionals or more elderly groups, to readily socialise within their housing groups whilst the provision to easily socialise within the community as a whole is still maintained.

Importantly, the paths and roadways connecting all the areas are seen as places of social intergrating and not infered boundaries. Gardens, located along the pathways would off areas to stop and mingle or simply take “retreat” if required.

As privacy is so highly regarded, as per the survey results, the area of community must offer facilties to enable people to establish areas of a semi-private nature. The larger community areas of dining and community family areas would be deigned sympathetically to allow for “niches” and “nooks” off the main rooms which would still allow the connectivity but still give a sence of privacy.

Page 23

COMMUNITY ROOM

FAMILY POD

STUDENT/SINGLE(S) POD

I M P R I N T Page 24

Page 25

IMPRINT 23/ 24 Westcliff Ct are two plots of land in Marino Rocks, located on the western side of a steep valley The site is a very short walk from the beach, the beach is visible from the site. The site is also located next to a walking trail which will be directly tied into the site. The Marino Rocks train station is also just a five minute walk from the site making it a prime space for students.

Charles Chadwick a1759275

The geography surrounding the site features earthy tones, but also greys, greyish blues and dull greens. These colours work together quite nicely into a washed out coastal vibe. Buildings around this area are built on stilts to work with the topography which will translate into the design. The site has provided a colour palette which I have reflected in my design to fit the site.

IMPRINT is a collection of six co-living/ cohousing apartments and one Nautilus Recreation Centre. IMPRINT contains two 14 person houses, two 10 person houses and two four person houses.

IMPRINT is split like this as the 2030 coliving study shows that most people only want to share with a few people and those people have different spatial requirements.

Since different people have different spatial requirements, the larger houses contain one person rooms, two person rooms and four people family spaces which could also be two person spaces for people who want their own rooms and kitchens. overall, IMPRINT provides 56 peoples accomodation including 15 kids.

Page 26

MANTARAY: (HOUSE DESIGN 01)

1

-Houses 14 People -230 square metres of living space including communal and private spaces -Different modes of sharing, (2x1-person rooms, 2x2-person rooms and 2x4-person rooms)

MANTARAY: (HOUSE 01) -2 students, 1 room each -1 single dad with 1 daughter -, 1 room together -1 professional couple, 1 room together -2 four person families, each with a family compartment .

1

MANATEE: (HOUSE 02) -1 student, 1 room -1 working adult, 1 room -2 professional couples, 1 room each -1 four person family, 1 family compartment .

2

-3 students, 3 rooms each -1 working adult, 1 room

NAUTILUS REC. CENTRE

7

3

-1400 square metres of communal spaces -3 levels -Different recreational spaces for different activities

In the ground level plan (left) most of the nautilus rec centre is cut out and most of the image is of the cut earth. but it does supply a decent section showing the depth of the underground parking.

ANEMONE: (HOUSE 03)

DUGONG: (HOUSE 04)

4

STAR-PARK: (08) STING-RAY: (HOUSE 05) -1 student, 1 room -1 working adult, 1 room -2 retired senior couples, 1 room each -1 four person family, 1 family compartment -1 five person family, 1 family compartment

Level 2 plan (right) shows how the interior levels step down as well as how the roof of the ground level is below the cut line showing the staggering roof. the interior of the nautilus rec centre is navigated by long ramps, good for wheelchairs, and the exterior features a staircase going around the building, perhaps a good way to get to the main road quickly.

Charles Chadwick a1759275

-1 student, 1 room -1 working adult, 1 room -4 students, 2 rooms together -1 five person family, 1 family compartment .

MONTICULOSA: (HOUSE 06) -2 students, 1 room each -1 retired senior 1 room -1 working adult, 1 room

-Parking lot -40 car access

5 8 6 7

NAUTILUS REC. CENTRE: (07) -GROUND LEVEL: table tennis tables, pool tables, video games and bean bag chairs -LEVEL 1: communal art resources, tables, easles, drawing tablets.

-LEVEL 2: quiet study level, desks, computers, study pods.

Page 27

IMPRINT Imprint is a community for all. The welcoming Community has a well balance personality. These co-living communities are for people who have just graduated from university, hold a full-time job, and are not yet ready to settle down. The young adults will be able to explore their identities in these co-living quarters, allowing them a range of opportunities in the group.

There will be pubs, restaurants, and shops that provide activities for the community’s residents.

Community members would be able to share and use whatever they want, as well as gain access to many activities around the site. The residents’ private areas, which their own private office, would be off limits to everyone other than the resident of the room. Everyone will have several chances to connect with the workers who build the event schedule.

To maintain the community morale, the activities will be established through a survey every 3-4 months.

These structures will be built in such a way that they appear welcoming and intriguing from afar. Allowing the building to have small bridges to cross over to a specific location and incorporating aesthetics into the Co-living, the building would be designed differently than others. Because of the differences in this project, different skills and approaches to execution are required. The project’s size is used as a profiling attribute.

Giuseppe Focarelli

Page 28

SINGLE - 4 Bedrooms, Bathroom & Common Area

COUPLE

- 2 Bedrooms, Ensuite & Common Area

FAMILIES - 2 Bedrooms, LivingRoom, Bathroom Play Area

ELDERLY - 4 Bedrooms Per Dwelling, Bathroom,

Giuseppe Focarelli

Page 29

COMMUNITY PROFILE Imprint is a co-living facility for people tryig to live their best lives - living socially, eating healthy and trying to be as eco-friendly as practicable. Our ideal resident would seek to live happily, while owning little COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Regular community events will help bring this community together. Planned events would include activities such as: Hikes, camping trips, cooking classes, bike rides, beach days and more. With our bike hire services, and a train station right on our doorstep, events can take place all over, at a very low travel cost.

I M P R I N T MAIN HUB

SECTION 1 HOUSING BLOCK 1

SECTION 2 HOUSING BLOCK 2

SECTION 1 SECTION 3 HOUSING BLOCK 3

HOUSING BLOCK 4

Isaac Peckover a1731661

Page 30

SITE FEATURES Community gardens Shared kitchen/dining spaces parking for up to 30 cars Housing for up to 50 residents + 10 kids Bike hire/storage Study space Gym/yoga room Wheelchair access to elder block & Main Hub

Isaac Peckover a1731661

Page 31

CONCEPT DESIGN TIM MARGITICH A1814887

TIM MARGITICH A1814887

IMP

Page 32

PRINT

TIM MARGITICH A1814887

Page 33

v

COMMUNAL LIVING. IMPRINT.

ALESSIO PARRELLA, CHARLES CHADWICK, ENIS DEMIRI, GIUSEPPE FOCARELLI, ISAAC PECKOVER & TIM MARGITICH Page 34