Imprint

Alessio Parrella

Enis Demiri

Tim Margitich

Charles Chadwick

Isaac Peckover

Giuseppe Focarelli

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.’

1,440M2

AREA

100M

160M2

LENGTH

DWELINGS

SPATIAL CONFIGURATION

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.’

SURVEY ANALYSIS

Design Brief: The community should be encouraged to promote in the direction of a zero-waste approach as a way of ‘giving back’ to the environment and land we all borrow from the future generations. People will be encouraged to grow and eat their own food as a society by farming the land surrounding. Residents should be urged to support the land, enabling the community to form its own economy with the surplus of agricultural products.

Community Infographics

Spatial configuration

People would rather have their own room to live in, so a larger facility would indicate more privacy. A smaller designs would mean less privacy but the community would be closer together and form more of a group. There would be more contact if there was less privacy. A bigger design would be more costly to build, making it more expensive for citizens to own.

Creating a smaller group will help bring costs down, enabling individuals to buy or rent the land.

The community should be encouraged to promote in the direction of a zero-waste approach as a way of ‘giving back’ to the environment and land we all borrow from the future generations. People will be encouraged to grow and eat their own food as a society by farming the land surrounding.

Residents should be urged to support the land, enabling the community to form its own economy with the surplus of agricultural products.

Community Profile:

9

50 Adults, 10 Children

100m 160m2 2 Single parents with one child

Single parents with one child

Families of two adults with two child

3 families of 2 adults with 1 child

Students

Families of two adults with one child

10 Students

2 Single parents with 2 children

Professiona l couples

Elderly singles

Elderly couples

2 Professional couples

Single parents with two children

3 families of 2 adults with 2 children

4 elderly couples (retiree)

8 elderly individuals (retiree)

DESIGN

SITE PLAN

1:800

COMMUNITY AREA

FAMILY POD

SINGLE’S POD

DOWN KITCHEN

STUDIO

UPPER LEVEL

UP

GROUND LEVEL

SECTIONS

SELECTION

ROOF DETAIL

PLANTS

PACIFIC HORTICULTURE

MATERIAL

PALM TREE

RENDER

CONCRET

Enis Demiri - A1769523

Design Precedent: The Oak Collective The aim for the space is to come up with a design that will house up to 50 people of all differnt proffessions and ages. The space will accomodate the occupants with neccesities required to enjoy the space. The goal is to house a group of people whohave at least one thing in common and thats people who are environmentaly cautious.

Another goal for the design is for the residents to be self sustaining and almost live an offthe grid lifestyle when they are at home. In order to ensure this is achieved, water and electricity is required to be generated and gatherd. Therefore, every house will be powered by TESLA solarpannels.

For water collection, big 37,047L tanks will be situated under the buildings. The 10 personhouses will only require one tank, while the 20 person house will require two.

The design of the roofs were stratigically tilt towards the east to ensure the maximum amount of sunlight is csunlight is captured throughout the day. The roofs tilt also helps with capturing the rain as it tricklesdown and is captured at the back of the house which then sends it to the water tanks below.

Enis Demiri

PLP/Architecture: “The shortage of housing is an acute and pervasive problem in the contemporary city and young people are perhaps the most affected. Faced with housing that is either exorbitantly expensive or hopelessly inadequate, they are increasingly pushed out of urban centres, isolated and marginalised. To address this condition, we have been working with the start-up Collective to develop a strategy for new and affordable ways of living predicated on high-density, communality and shared experience. Collective Old Oak, in West London is the first of this model to be built and is currently the world’s largest co-living building. Our approach for the building has been to laminate social and residential spaces within a hybrid typology where complementary uses and collaborative spaces supplement a compacted arrangement of private living quarters. Working, living, creating, exchanging, socializing and entertaining, all occur within a formal arrangement that operates more as a vertical neighbourhood rather than an individual building.”

Enis Demiri - A1769523

INITIAL DESIGN: The initial design was designed to be made up domes. This idea was short lived as it was not sustainable in achieveing the required space for a tight space community.

- Private Spaces - Communel Spaces - Easy Disability Access - Close Proximity To Public Transport - Walking Distance To Beach - Easy and Fast Commute To City

About Siteout for rectThe More domes were thenThe swapped Imprint is a Co-Living community locatangular boxes which made better use of the ed on two lots of land in 23/24 Westcliff space allocated for the design. The original Court. The terrain proved difficult to build plans had due an array differnt designs to best upon to itsofrugged and steep natusuit ral the landscape. differnt groups.

However only two However, specific designs housing designes were used for the final and were constructed to make it easier design. more efficient to build upon.

NORTH ELEVATION 1:10

FLOOR PLAN 1:100 LIVINGROOM

KITCHEN

LAUNDRY

TOILET

WEST ELEVAION 1:100 ROOM 3

ROOM 2

ROOM 1

Housing Space

There are 4 communel houses built on the land. Three of which have the same building design and each built to house 10 people. The 10 person houses are designed to accommodate elderly. students and couples due to the room sizes.

The 20 person building is more suited for famlies as the room sizes are larger and can fit small families. There is also more communel spaces and other neccessary spaces required to help satisfy families.

ROOM 4

ROOM 5

NORTH SECTION 1:100

OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE

The floor plans did not change greatly from the original design. The parking lot was the only major issue of the design. It was far too big for such a small community and it was also not environmentally friendly.

The parking lot changed multiple times throughout the design process. The houses were also moved around to best fit the steep terrain. It was important to ensure that we used the least amount of cut and fill and therefore incorperated support beams underneat the house.

00

HICS

Minor chnages to the design of the house were made as other design options were taken into consideration. The roof for starters was angled for two reasons. One of them being to allow water to run down and into the gutters for better water collection.

The other reason for the roofs change was so that when the solar pannels are placed on the roofs, they face north. This means that the houses will collect the optimal amount of energy every day due to the roofs angle.

0

At first, pathways lead too and from each house in multiple directions. Although this was visually appealing, it was not physically possible to do without a lot of cut and fill. Therefore the houses were moved right up to the edge of the boarder line and only a small 1m width path runs to and from the parking lot and to each house

Enis Demiri - A1769523

CYCAD: - Used in many modern homelandscaping designs as a resultof its size and tropical look

WATER COLLECTION AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION Another goal for the design is for the residents to be self sustaining and almost live an offthe grid lifestyle when they are at home. In order to ensure this is achieved, water and electricity is required to be generated and gatherd. Therefore, every house will be powered by TESLA solarpannels.

For water collection, big 37,047L tanks will be situated under the buildings. The 10 personhouses will only require one tank, while the 20 person house will require two. The design of the roofs were stratigically tilt towards the east to ensure the maximum amount of sunlight is csunlight is captured

FRANGPANI: -A beautiful flower the big buildings,w many of the reside

throughout the day. The roofs tilt also helps with capturing the rain as it tricklesdown and is captured at the back of the house which then sends it to the water tanks below

tree that contrasts will be enjoyed by ents

HEDGES: -Adds a certain level of privacy as well as reducingnoise from travelling through the space.

-Concrete will be the most used materialthroughout the builidng as the design is heavily ifluenced by modern concretestructures -Batt insulation is in most Australian homes, it is very effective in doing what iit was designed to do -The houses have very large windows and therefore require very reliable glass pains toensure its sustainability - Steel will not only be used as the framingfor the houses but also the support collums that will hold up and stabalise the building where specifie

CEDAR PINE: -Very stylish and adds character to the desig

‘Co-living’: the end of urban loneliness – or cynical corporate dormitories?

Not all Co-Living is community based, companies like The Collective are now transforming hotels into vip co-living/ co-housing structures with high prices.

The foundational concept of co-living is bringing people together, giving the community control of their housing, reducing the cost of living and increasing the quality of life.

But for communities like The Collective, people are charged absurdly high costs for a cheaply constructed collection of boxes and feel alienated by the lack of social diversity.

This “corporate co-living” is just a glorified dormitory living situation.

Hannah Wheatley, a researcher on housing and land says; “Co-living is purely a new way for developers to squeeze profit from an already broken housing market,” Student Emma Kay, former resident of the Collective was seriously uncomfortable due to the restrictive nature of the collective, Who took a drink she bought from the collectives bar outside, she said,

CHARLES CHADWICK A1759275

“The next day I got an email saying they’d seen me on CCTV with a glass in the smoking area and if I did it again there would be consequences,” she says. “It felt quite uncomfortable knowing whatever you do is being watched, and if you break the rules for a minor offence you’d get in trouble.”

This example of control over the residents destroys the ability for residents like Kay to feel part of a community, they can’t because they don’t even have the freedom of drinking in a smoking zone.

Furthermore, Kay felt alienated from the social status of the occupants of the collective, she says, “It just felt like a hotel with rich students getting their accommodation paid for” Co-living is meant to be a way to bring together people of different social status, not separate, the collective is a very good example of a co-living “community” designed for the wealth it acquires.

Reza Merchant, CEO and founder of The Collective, states he designed the collective in mind of community, quality and affordability, yet The Collective has not delivered on this as tenants have found the collective’s layout lacking and as we know from Kay, some residents feel genuinely uncomfortable in the accommodation due to repressive managerial styles.

Will coldwell, the author of the article 'Co-living': the end of urban loneliness – or cynical corporate dormitories? states that “even if its approach “stems from a place of love”, as Merchant claims, it’s difficult to reconcile this service philosophy with the reality of what is on offer: a high price for short-term convenience.”

Reza Merchant, Founder of The Collective And that's what the collective is, it's a short term convenience, charging high prices for incredibly small dorm rooms and calling it co-living.

Arwa Mahdawi states “Now, to be fair, co-living isn’t just living with a bunch of roommates. No, it’s rich millennials living with a bunch of roommates in a fancy building in a recently gentrified part of town.”

Mahdawi states quite bluntly that co-living communities like the collective are just rebranding themselves from cramped roommates to co-living, a brand that is more appealing to people, a brand that says they care about community and therefore driving profits.

SURVEY ANALYSIS one house shared; 2030 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.

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

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.

CHARLES CHADWICK A1759275

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

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.

50 PEOPLE > 4-15 PER STRUCTURE > 6 STRUCTURES

6 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES + 1 RECREATIONAL CENTRE FURTHER ANALYSIS As seen in the One House Shared 2030 survey results, 15% of people want to share their living spaces with couples, 14% with single women and 13% with single men; so 27% of people are comfortable sharing with single people, which is separate from single parents as single people implies a single person with no children. From this, it can be inferred that a community comprised of independant single adults.

Also, 12% of people are comfortable sharing their living quarters with

‘families’ defined as single or coupled parents/ caregivers with one or more children. This area from 15-12% is where seems the “normal” comfortability level lies for people who actually want to share their homes, from 10-8% is where people begin to be uncomfortable with whom they share their space with, including small children, single-dads and the lowest of all ratings, teenagers.

Due to the data acquired by the study, half of the responses want between 4 and 10 people in their

community, this obviously wont apply in the case of the Marino Rocks co-living community as we need a minimum of 50 people, but only 13% of people want to share with a community between 25 and 50, and only 4% of people want to share with 50-100 people, so there isn’t too many people, so its important that the groups are interested in co-living, which comes down to their identity.

The red squares indicate the spaces provided for public, shared use, the blue is the provate spaces, each person would have two connected boxes, one square for bedroom, one for a work space. the green boxes show semi-private spaces.

CHARLES CHADWICK A1759275

PENDA: URBAN NEST SHANGHAI mini-life EXPOSITION

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.

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 podlike installments separated from the main 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.

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.

1

3

My first concept, I wanted to create a large recreational space with modular homes able to slot in beside the centre via steel slotting mechanisms

CHARLES CHADWICK A1759275

2

Next, I tried to create a type of modular system with more flexibility where the homes are a collection of cubes, much like Pendas Urban Nest, but where there can live 1 to many people in 1 compartment, and the form of the recreational space was very difficult to discover.

Here, the starts to t system is challenge complex

e modular-cuboid system take shape, and yet, the s too simple, I want to e myself so I seek more geometries

(some of the) FORM DESIGN PROCESS

STAGE 1 DESIGN

4

Experimenting with form and modular geometries....

5

By this stage, I decide to incorporate modularism into the interior designs of the residential structures, reserving the complex form for the recreational centre...

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

SPATIAL COMPOSITION PROCESS Stage 1 process updated with stage 2 final drawings for consistency*

DUO COMPARTMENT

Minimal space for two people, including space for 2 beds, two sets of drawers, room for a bookshelf or lounge and options for storage under the bed

FAMILY COMPARTMENT Internal walls to seperate children and parents, with space enough for bunk beds and drawers in the kids room, and a king size bed and drawers in the adults room.

CHARLES CHADWICK A1759275

SINGLE COMPARTMENT

Minimal space for 1 person, including space for drawers, which could be set under the bed in order to bring in a bookshelf or sofa.

12-15 Person Setup

The Large Houses

1:300

10-12 Person Setup

The Medium Houses

1:300

The Small Houses

1:300

4 Person Setup

visual diagrams are 3D representations of my design process sketches and not to scale*

3 Levelled structures accomodating the curvature of the valley, splitting the single, duo and family compartments throughout the levels. Bathroom and Laundry are found on the central level on either side of the dining and living-rooms.

Features a large deck and is accessible by wheelchair

3 Levelled structures accomodating, Has been revised to mimic the larger house, this design was made to provide one less family compartment, reducing the density of cildren and noise, but the family compartment can be adjusted via movable walls to cater to up to 5 children.

2 Levelled structures all bedrooms are located on the upper level and part of the loungeroom as well, the kitchen is located on the lower level via ramp, and the bathroom and laundry is located centrally for ease of access.

NAUTILUS RECREATION CENTRE

The Nautilus Recreation Centre, based on the nautilus shells golden ratio, the idea was to create an atmosphere inside like walking through an incredibly large shell, the nearby ocean could create the perfect sound-effects of putting a shell to the ear and giving residents the feeling of vacation whilst

GROUND FLOOR CHARLES CHADWICK A1759275

studying.

The design in its finality totals roughly 1100 square metres, 200m2 more than the residential square footage combined, why? because, I have provided the residents a very small living space while maintaining a comfortable level of space, the recreation space exists to

FIRST FLOOR

give people an area to complete things, a common mental block I struggle with is being at home, and I find that walking up the hill to my granparents house and studying there increases my motivation greatly.

But the rec centre also provides tools and spaces for art, sport and computer pods.

SECOND FLOOR

ROOF PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS SOLAR PANELS

WATER COLLECTION

Area: 1000m2 Collection: 2,000,000 kW hours per year Uses: Lighting, Warmth, Computers & Electronics, Security

Area: 800m2 Collection: 1x custom 50,000 litre tank Uses: Filtered for drinking, Gardening, Showers, Toilets

LIGHT + VIEW CONSIDERATIONS Windows in both the recreation centre and the residential areas are faced to the ocean to recieve good views, also, window space is maximized to increase natural light, this will decrease the amount of energy used by reducing the lighting needed.

R EC-CENTR E SECTION SCALE - 1:400

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.

LT de se in

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

Isaac Peckover a1731661

8m

44.25m

6.5 28.5m

Site P

40.41m

Secion A

g

5.8m

47.29m

37 .05 m

red inin Sha hen/D Kitc

8.4m

4.1m

22

.2m

34.08m

Re

5.2m

8.

46 m

6.23

8.4m

n

tio cep

Site Plan 1:600

15.4m

7.01m

3.2m

17m

6.5m

8.7m

4m

66m

ly

mi

Fa r we e Lo us Ho

23

.08

m

49.17

m

Secion B

Total Cut: 1,347m3 Total Fill: 435m2 Total Footprint: 1,400m2 Total Carpark/Road Footprint: 1,012m Total Footprint of All Floors: 2,800m2

Plans

m2 Water Tank

Section A 1:100

Section B 1:100

Section Cut and Fill 1:100 Isaac Peckover a1731661

8.7m

3.2m 17m 4m

6.5m

Housing Block A 1:150

Housing Block B 1:150

A 8.4m

B 5.2m 22.2 m

D

8.4m 4.1m

Housing Block C 1:150

C

5.8m

Housing Block D 1:150 Isaac Peckover a1731661

LEVELLIN

NG ON SITE

Isaac Peckover a1731661

MATERIALS

S

PLANTS Gum Trees

Pine Trees

Acacia Shrubs

Isaac Peckover a1731661

IKEA SHARED LIVING Ikea-backed Space10 has spent the past two years exploring the concept of shared living, and to-gether with Effekt Architects, the cohort is launching the Urban Village Project.

Described as a “visionary model” for developing sustainable, affordable homes in major cities, the team say the goal is to encourage cheaper homes entering the market, while simultaneously making it easier to live sustainably and affordably through its approach to design, construction and finance through the scalable project.

The issue: Up to 1.5 million people move to a city every week, which means in roughly a decade, 1.6 billion people are anticipated to lack access to affordable and adequate housing.

To realise affordable dwellings, the collective says it will bypass the interests of short-term investors to challenge existing models of development, as it describes them as “the two culprits behind rising housing prices in almost every major city”.

The team also plan that the homes would be built from sustainable wood, such as cross-laminated timber.

“It’s been found that wood homes help promote better mental health for those who live in them.”

Space10, Effekt Architects and Ikea say they’ve condensed their research and insights into a concrete concept and vision for the project and are seeking feedback before advancing to the project’s next stage.

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 A1686275

PLANNING SINGLES SINGLES STUDY

BED 1

KITCHEN

KITCHEN

STUDY

STUDY

WC KITCHEN

BED 1

BED 4

KITCHEN

BED 1

BED 4

BED 1

BED 4

KITCHEN

KITCHEN

LIVING

STUDY

STUDY

BED 2

STUDY

WC KITCHEN

STUDY

WC

BED 1

BED 4 BED 4

ELDERLY ELDERLY

FAMILIES

STUDY

WC

STUDY

WC

BED 1 KITCHEN

FAMILIES

COUPLES COUPLES

BED 2

BED 5 BED 2

BED 5

BED 2

BED 5

KITCHEN BED 2 BED 2

BED 5

LIVING

LIVING

LIVING

LIVING

BED 5

LIVING

LIVING

LIVING

KITCHEN

COMMON AREA COMMON AREA

BED 3

BED 6

BED 6

BED 3

BED 3

STORAGE

WC BED 6

STORAGE

WC

STORAGE

WC

BED 3

BED 6

STORAGE

WC

BED 3

BED 6

STUDY

WC WC

STUDY

WC

WC

BED 4

WC

BED 3

BED 1

BED 1

BED 4

WC BED 4

BED 5

BED 1

BED 4

WC BED 4

STUDY

WC

STUDY

WC

STUDY WC

STUDY

BED 4

BED 3

BED 1

LIVING

BED 1

KITCHEN BED 2

BED 5

BED 1

BED 5

COMMON AREA

BED 1

COMMON AREA

LIVING

BED 1

BED 1

BED 2

BED 6 BED 2

LIVING

LIVING BED 2

KITCHEN

BED 5

LIVING

LIVING

COMMON AREA BED 2

COMMON AREA

BED 3

BED 3

BED 2

BED 1

BED 6

BED 3

BED 2 BED 2

SINGLES INGLES STUDY

WC

BED 1

BED 4

KITCHEN

KITCHEN

STUDY

STUDY

WC

BED 1

BED 4

STUDY

STUDY

WC KITCHEN

LIVING

KITCHEN BED 2

BED 5

KITCHEN

LIVING

LIVING

BED 1

BED 4

STORAGE

WC

BED 3

BED 3

BED 1

BED 4

COMMON AREA

KITCHEN BED 6

BED 6

BED 1

BED 4

BED 2

BED 5

LIVING

BED 3

BED 3

KITCHEN

BED 3

STUDY

BED 2

BED 2

STUDY

WC KITCHEN

BED 1

BED 6 KITCHEN

LIVING

BED 1

BED 2

LIVING

KITCHEN

BED 3

STUDY

WC BED 5

BED 2

ELDERLY ELDERLY

STUDY

BED 1

BED 4

STUDY

BED 5 WC

LIVING

BED 1

BED 6 KITCHEN

LIVING

STUDY

STUDY

BED 2

BED 5 STUDY

WC

KITCHEN

FAMILIES FAMILIES

COUPLES COUPLES

STUDY

WC

BED 1

BED 4

STORAGE

WC

BED 6

BED 3

STUDY LIVING BED 2

BED 2

BED 5

SIX ROOMS PER DWELLING, OWN PRIVATE SPACE OF 2400 COMMUNITY X 2000 WITH A COMMON & STUDY AREA WITH A KITCHEN COMMUNITY AREA TO SHARE LIVING

BED 3

BED 6

BED 3

BED 1

COMMON AREA

BED 2

AREA

BED 5

BED 1

BED 1

POOL

BED 5

FOOD STALL BED 1

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL BAR

BED 1

BED 1

BED 5

BED 3

BED 6

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL FOOD STALL

BED 2

LIVING

POOL

RESTAURANT

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL FOOD STALL

BED 3

FOOD STALL

RESTAURANT

STUDY

BED 5

BED 3

BED 6

FOOD STALL

BED 1

KITCHEN

BED 2

RELAX ZONE FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL

STUDY

WC

FOOD STALL

BED 2

LIVING

BED 3

RELAX ZONE

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL GYM AREA

POOL

BED 3

STUDY

WC

FOOD STALL

CAR PARK BED 1

BED 4

LIVING

KITCHEN

BED 5

BED 2

BED 6

BED 3

BED 2

LEVEL VOID, ALLOWING THE CARS TO FIND A PARK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OR EXITING

GROUND LEVEL

FOOD STALL

3 COUPLES IN EACH DWELLING PROVIDING WITH TWO COMMON AREAS EACH. WC COMMUNITY AREA LIVING AND KITCHEN WITH TWO SINKS AND LOWER LEVEL GROUND LEVEL TWO COOK FIRST FLOOR LEVEL TOPS BAR

BED 4

BED 2

LIVING

FOOD STALL

KITCHEN STUDY

BED 2

LIVING

BED 1

STUDY

WC BED 4

LIVING

BED 1

STUDY

BED 4

KITCHEN STUDY

BED 6

BED 2

BED 2

WC

CAR PARK

BED 2

WC

COMMON AREA

GYM AREA

BED 1

KITCHEN

BED 5

LIVING

STUDY

WC

COMMON AREA

STUDY

STUDY

WC

LIVING

BED 1

LIVING

BED 1

BED 3

BED 4

WC BED 4

BED 1

COMMON AREA

BED 6

STUDY

WC

BED 4

BED 4

BED 2

STORAGE

STUDY

WC

WC

BED 3

EACH DWELLING HAS 1 FAMILY WHICH CONTAINS 2 BEDROOMS, ENTRANCE VIA FIRST FLOOR STUDY, WC AND RELAX LEVEL VOID, ALLOWING THE CARS TO FIND A PARK ON ZONE WITH THE COMTHE GROUND LEVEL OR EXITING MON AREA DOWN STAIRS ENTRANCE VIA FIRST FLOOR WC

WC

WC

BED 2

COMMON AREA

STORAGE

WC

BED 3

KITCHEN

BED 5

LIVING

EXIT T

6 ELDERLY PER DWELLING, ENTRANCE FROM DRIVE WAY TO FIRST FLOOR LEVEL INCLUDES 2400 X 2000 PROPROVIDING ENTRANCE TO GROUND LEVEL VIA VOID VATE SPACE WITH A LARGELY SOUTH OF CAR PARK GROUND LEVEL CAR PARK EXIT TO COMMON AREA TO RELAX ENTRANCE FROM DRIVE WAY AND ENJOY THE VIEW. HAVE TO FIRST FLOOR LEVEL PROVIDING ENTRANCE TO ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY GROUND LEVEL VIA VOID SOUTH OF CAR PARK CENTER RIGHT NEXT DOORLEVEL FIRST FLOOR ENTRANCE VIA FIRST FLOOR LEVEL VOID, ALLOWING THE CARS TO FIND A PARK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OR EXITING

STUDY

WC

STUDY

WC

BED 1

BED 5

BED 1

BED 4

ES

KITCHEN

BED 4

BED 1

COMMON AREA

FAMILIES

KITCHEN

STUDY

BED 2

BED 2

BED 5

LIVING

BED 6

BED 1

BED 5

BED 5

LIVING

LIVING

BED 2

BED 2

LIVING

BED 6

BED 3

LIVING

BED 1

BED 1

COUPLES

COMMON AREA

STUDY

BED 6

BED 2

BED 2

ELDERLY BED 3

BED 3

STUDY

WC

STUDY

WC KITCHEN

KITCHEN

BED 1

BED 4

BED 1

BED 4

KITCHEN

KITCHEN STUDY LIVING BED 2

BED 5

LIVING

KITCHEN

BED 5

BED 2

BED 6

BED 3

LIVING COMMON AREA

BED 6

STORAGE

WC

BED 3

STUDY

STORAGE

WC

COMMUNITY AREA

BED 1

ITCHEN

WC

BED 2

STUDY WC

BED 1

BED 5

BED 1

BED 5

LIVING

LIVING BED 1

LOWER LEVEL A GYMNASIUM WITH A SWIMMING POOL

BED 6

BED 2

GYM AREA

POOL

BED 1

BED 2

FOOD STALL

ENTRANCE VIA FIRST FLOOR LEVEL VOID, ALLOWING THE CARS TO FIND A PARK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OR EXITING LIVING

BED 1

FOOD STALL

COMMON AREA COMMON AREA

STUDY

BED 4

WC BED 4

BED 3

BED 2

CAR PARK

ENTRANCE FROM DRIVE WAY TO FIRST FLOOR LEVEL PROVIDING ENTERANCE TO GROUND LEVEL VIA VOID SOUTH OF CAR PARK WC

STUDY

WC BED 4

BED 3

ING

KITCHEN

BED 2

BED 3

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL

BAR

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL FOOD STALL

RESTAURANT

COMMUNITY AREA

CAR PARK

FOOD STALL

STUDY

WC

BED 1

BED 4

KITCHEN

STUDY

COUPLES LIVING

BED 6

RELAX ZONE

FAMILIES

BED 2

BED 5

BED 3

ELDERLY

FOOD STALL

KITCHEN

STUDY

WC

KITCHEN

BED 1

BED 4

LIVING

WC

BAR

FOOD STALL

LOWER LEVEL

GROUND LEVEL

FOOD STALL

COMMUNITY AREA STORAGE

WC

COMMON AREA

FOOD STALL

STORAGE

FIRST FLOOR LEVEL LIVING

BED 5

KITCHEN

BED 2

BED 6

CAR PARK

BED 3

FOOD STALL

RESTAURANT

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL STUDY

WC WC

STUDY

WC

BED 5

LIVING

D2

GROUND LEVEL INCLUDES A BAR TO FIRST FLOOR LEVEL PROVIDING AND A RESTURANT PROVIDING AENTRANCE TO GROUND LEVEL VIA VOID SOUTH OF CAR PARK VIEW OF THE SUNSET AND OCEAN RELAX ZONE

BED 1

COMMON AREA COMMON AREA

BED 1 BED 2

FOOD STALL

LIVING

BED 1

LIVING

BED 2

L

BED 1

BED 4

WC BED 4

FOOD STALL

D1

FOOD STALL

GROUND LEVEL

FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EXIT TO GROUND LEVEL

KITCHEN

BED 5

BED 2

BED 6

BED 3

FOOD STALL

BAR

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL

RESTAURANT

FOOD STALL

GROUND LEVEL

EL

GROUND LEVEL

FIRST FLOOR LEVEL

EXIT TO GROUND LEVEL

RELAX ZONE

ENTRANCE FROM DRIVE WAY TO FIRST FLOOR LEVEL PROVIDING ENTRANCE TO GROUND LEVEL VIA VOID SOUTH OF CAR PARK

GROUND LEVEL

FIRST FLOOR LEVEL

Y AREA

EVEL

ENTRANCE VIA FIRST FLOOR LEVEL VOID, ALLOWING THE CARS TO FIND A PARK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OR ENTRANCE EXITING FROM DRIVE WAY

STUDY WC

BED 4

BED 3

CAR PARK ENTRANCE VIA FIRST FLOOR LEVEL VOID, ALLOWING THE CARS TO FIND A PARK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OR EXITING

FOOD STALL

FOOD STALL FOOD STALL FOOD STALL FOOD STALL FOOD STALL FOOD STALL FOOD STALL

FIRST FLOOR LEVEL

ENTRANCE VIA FIRST FLOOR LEVEL VOID, ALLOWING THE CARS TO FIND A FIRST FLOOR LEVEL SPARE PARK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OF TO EXITING

FIRST FLOOR IS THE FOOD COURT / SHOPPING FOR ANY EQUIPMENT PROVIDING THE COMMUNITY WITH FO THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE IN20 CARS. ENTRANCE TO THE SITE WILL GROUND LEVEL CLUDED BE FROM THE WEST CLIFF ROAD FOLLWOING THE LANE TO THE ON SITE CAR PARK EXIT TO GROUND LEVEL

RELAX ZONE

ENTRANCE FROM DRIVE WAY TO FIRST FLOOR LEVEL PROVIDING ENTRANCE TO GROUND LEVEL VIA VOID SOUTH OF CAR PARK

FIRST FLOOR LEVEL

EXIT

ENTRANCE FROM DRIVE WAY TO FIRST FLOOR LEVEL PROVIDING ENTRANCE TO GROUND LEVEL VIA VOID SOUTH OF CAR PARK

ENTRANCE VIA FIRST FLOOR LEVEL VOID, ALLOWING THE CARS TO FIND A PARK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OR EXITING

FOOD STALL

GROUND LEVEL

GIUSEPPE FOCARELLI A1686275

STRUCTURE Column 250 x 250 Secondary Beam 250 x250 Primary Beam 250x310

Foundation 1000 x 1000 x 1000

Column 250 x 250 Secondary Beam 250 x250 Primary Beam 250x310

Foundation 1000 x 1000 x 1000

Timber Framing Floor Trusses

Timber Framing Slab Column 250 x 250 Secondary Beam 250 x250 Primary Beam 250x310

Foundation 1000 x 1000 x 1000

Timber Framing Slab Column 250 x 250 Secondary Beam 250 x250 Primary Beam 250x310

Foundation 1000 x 1000 x 1000

GIUSEPPE FOCARELLI A1686275

PROCESS

STRUCTURE

RETAINING WALLS

BUIDLING PLACEMNT

MOVEMENT

VEGETATION

LIVING GIUSEPPE FOCARELLI A1686275

LEVELS -6500mm

SECTION BB -9500mm

SECTION AA -12500mm

LIVING AREA: 950m2 COMMON AREA: 1435m2

GIUSEPPE FOCARELLI A1686275