Hybrid Modular Architecture for Emerging Housing Behaviors by JDP Architects

PhD Candidate Joseph di Pasquale

Pubblications

Graduated magna cum laude in Architecture at Politecnico di Milano in 1991. Contract professor at Politecnico di Milano from 2009 to 2015. Storytelling and Film Direction studies and in New York Film Academy in 2001. Principal and founder of architectural practice “JDP Architects”. PhD candidate at Politecnico di Milano in Hybrid Systems for Modular Industrialized Architecture since 2016. Member of the board for L’Arca International Magazine. Member of CTBUH Conucil of Tall Building and Urban Habitat. ORCID id.

Articles: - Di Pasquale, J. (2017) Sulle tracce dei nuovi paradigmi dell’abitare, In L’ARCA INTERNATIONAL ISSN:1027-460X vol. 134 - Mussinelli, E., Tartaglia, A., Di Pasquale, J. (2017). “Typological and Technological innovation for the application of hybrid systems to housing construction.” Techne, 13, 287-294. - Di Pasquale J. (2017) L’ideale della città ideale, in L’ARCA INTERNATIONAL - ISSN:1027-460X vol. 136 - Di Pasquale, J., Innella, F., Bai, Y. (2018). “Structural Solution for hyrbid modular buildings with removable parts” (manuscript). Monash University, Melbourne. (Submitted for publication at Journal of Architectural Engineering ). Manuscript.

PhD Founding

Co-Funding Companies

Co-Financing Company

Workshop Partner

Academic Partner

Hybrid Modular Architecture

Joseph di Pasquale

PhD Candidate Joseph di Pasquale

Hybrid Modular Architecture: A Strategic Framework of Building Innovation for Emerging Housing Behaviors in Urban Contexts

Date: Milan, November 2018 Tutor: Professor Elena Mussinelli Supervisor: Professor Andrea Tartaglia Phd in Hybrid System for Modular Industrialized Architecture Co-funding companies: Progress spa, Valisr spa, Gewiss spa, Simens Italia spa

Politecnico di Milano ABC. Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering PhD course, 31st cycle Coordinator: Professor Enrico De Angelis

PhD Candidate Joseph di Pasquale

Hybrid Modular Architecture: A Strategic Framework of Building Innovation for Emerging Housing Behaviors in Urban Contexts

Politecnico di Milano ABC. Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering PhD course, 31st cycle Coordinator: Professor Enrico De Angelis

Abstract

The research, has been developed in the framework of a Doctoral Research scholarship at the Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering of Politecnico di Milano, in partnership with a cofunding panel of manufacturing companies involved in the construction sector (Gewiss srl, Progress srl, Valsir srl., Simenes Italia spa). The research aims to define a reference scenario for innovation in building construction, to reduce critical issues of actual production models: global demographic trends to define future housing demand, urban density to reduce sprawl and land consumption, modularization and industrialization to reduce the building process footprint. Afterwards the research analyzes a series of case studies to seek the traces of the metamorphosis of ongoing urban housing behaviors due to social, economical and technological changes, and a new type of emerging “house as a service” product. On this premises the thesis proposes a new theoretical framework defined as “hybrid modular” to interpret the dynamic changes in housing behaviors, triggering industrialization and the reduction of the footprint of the building construction industry. The modular hybrid building is reconceived separating permanent from temporary typological and technological purposes in a building. As a theoretical framework for the following experimental phase the thesis hypothesizes a concept project (meta-progetto) in which the long lifecycle systems (permanent mother structure) are conceptually separated from the short lifecycle systems (plug-in/out living modules), allowing the building to change over time following the changes of users’ needs and habits, and to trigger connection standardization and the industrial large scale production of living modules units. This basis has then led to the establishment of an experimental step that aims to design a possible application of these principles in a specific prototype for a building system, in cooperation with manufacturing companies, in order to investigate all potential product innovations.

SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

2.1. Technological culture and evolutionary scenarios: crisis of the production system and new housing paradigms. 2.2. Main trend indicators of emerging housing behaviors in urban contexts. 2.3. House as a service: emerging subjects in the real estate market based on the provision of living services during the life-cycle (co-living). 2.4. Conclusions

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MANAGMENT

33 34 39 68

3.1. The co-living phenomenon 3.2. Relevant co-living players. 3.3. Selected co-living player-building cases. 3.4. Analysis: co-living features indicator trends.

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

74 77

93 100

4.1. New and old ways to innovation: a possible interpretation. 4.2. Temporary and permanent: new housing models and hybridization of the residential building 4.3. Modular hybridization of typology 4.4. Modular hybridization of technology 4.5. The modular hybrid building: decomposing and grouping subsystems according to life cycles length. 4.6. Metaproject: urban housing modular hybrid building 4.7. Possible application cases.

104

5. CONCLUSIONS

110

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY - PICTURE REFERENCE LIST

17 25

78 85 87

118

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION

118 119 120 121 122 122 125 128 130

A1.1. Workshop structure and organization A1.2. Workshop scopes A1.3. Workshop participants A1.4. Workshop methodology Preplanning Plan and define Product design Process design Validation

132

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

132 134 140 146 150 157 159 162 162 174 179 182 194

• • • • • • • •

206

ANNEX 3: THE DOVE VIVO CASE STUDY

206

A3.1. From a peer-to-peer interchange platform between owners and users, to the business to consumer supply of integrated housing services

212

A3.2. Pilot Project: urban module of housing services, via San Faustino 10, Milano

214

ANNEX 4: SHORT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW TRACKING THE IDEA OF HYBRID MODULARITY IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY

Workshop structure Plan and define App user interface concept design Product design: hybrid modular architecture Product design: urban location Business plan Process design scheme Validation: pilot project final release Typology Layout and interior Mother structure Living pod Technical system and components

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. INTRODUCTION

The present research has been supported by a PhD scholarship of the ABC Department at Politecnico di Milano and co-funded by a panel of private manufacturing companies who operate in the construction industry: Progres (advanced prefabrication), Gewiss (electric plants), and Valsir (hydraulic plants and drainage). Siemens Italia (equipment and information technology) joined the panel of co-funding companies to support the experimental workshop. The research has been tutored by Professor Elena Mussinelli and supervised by Professor Andrea Tartaglia.

Hypothesis and Targets

The very first question for the entire research asks: how updated are the housing solutions actually available today, with respect to the epoch-making changes taking place in global social and economic behavior? Moreover the research aims to imagine an approach to building innovation that makes it possible to conceive homes able to match the current needs of urban life. The relevance of this topic is based on the renewed influx of the population, even in the most advanced societies, towards the urban centers. Cities again play a fundamental role as connection points between national territorial contexts and a globalized network of trade and communications (S. Sassen, 1995). This new role of the cities has initiated a profound renewal of urban habits, urban behaviors and urban space, which extends from central areas, to semi central areas – to the outskirts. In this context, a particular professional ecosystem is created in the fields of finance, design and services. This professional structure enables access to global networks and is able to operate indifferently in any pole of the network of global cities. The extreme mobility of this particular labor market is the fundamental characteristic that has profoundly changed the working habits of the new generations above all. The rise of the collaborative economy (sharing economy) in ever-wider sectors of the trade in goods and services has led to a substantial change in the concept of property itself. To give up exclusive possession in order to use shared assets, or even to share one’s assets with others, has spread to all market categories. This overturn represents a real change of cultural paradigm that is combined with a widespread collective awareness of the use of natural resources. The relatively sudden global emergence of companies such as AirBnB, Uber, Wework, Didi Kuaidi and Prosper demonstrate how the sharing economy is profoundly changing urban habits and behaviors in the areas of mobility, financial services, and real estate. This dynamic is already underway in the real estate sector beginning with some specific uses: tourist accommodation, shared work spaces, temporary residences. Nevertheless it is about to affect all other uses of real estate, starting from urban housing. In fact, new startup companies are offering “housing solutions” consisting of accommodation, common areas and integrated services (home as a service) specially designed for the new housing needs in urban areas. . CommonSpace,

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Ollie, Welive, The Collective, Urby, Where I Live, represent only a few of of these enterprises that we can define as providers of housing services or â&#x20AC;&#x153;home as a serviceâ&#x20AC;? The research aims to prefigure how these trends could substantially modify the building sector starting from urban residence. With the social changes under way, new needs and new housing behaviors are generated. The purpose is to investigate how these imply the need to reinvent housing development. On the basis of this hypothesis, the objective of the research is to propose a theoretical basis of this new approach to the building organism and to verify its efficiency through a meta-design phase and field experimentation. In the introduction to the development of the research, a brief consideration should be made to clarify with precision the content and the novelty component related to the proposed approach. First of all, it is important to clarify that the research purpose is not to develop any particular technological solution or specific constructive process. In this sense, countless researches in the past have already extensively explored various issues of study and experimentation with regard to typological flexibility, modularization, industrialization of production processes, cost reduction, and product research in the field of building components and technological systems. The whole of these acquisitions is a huge asset that is impossible to disregard. It is in fact made up of experiences positioned in an extensive and transversal way between scientific speculation, typological technological application, experimentation, and concrete initiatives of prototyping and industrial production (Annex 4). Nevertheless, the enormous amount of intellectual and planning energies in this field has not significantly affected the actual production and industrialization practices of the construction sector. The actual technologies still largely adopt without substantial differences the same typological solutions, technologies, production and processes developed and introduced almost one hundred years ago , in the first decades of the twentieth century. Some scholars believe that the main cause of this substantial failure must be identified more in the gap between the proposed innovations and the real needs expressed by the company both in terms of social structuring, than in terms of economic and housing behavior. Others instead have identified, especially in Italy, in the characteristics of the productive system (dimension of building companies), in the regulatory system and in the politics that in the last century have driven the social housing programs and incentivized the construction sector the different concauses. Industrialization of the building process, construction site robotisation, dry construction solutions, advanced building management and control processes are just some of the themes that have been tested several times over the past few decades without yet leading to real widespread innovations. The most recent political guidelines, such as the National Industry 4.0 Plan and the new environmental, economic and social challenges, however, seem to prefigure new

Content and original contribution of the research

1. INTRODUCTION

opportunities and new demands of innovation (Lucarelli et al, 2018). Basically the aim of these experiments exclusively targeted a solution for technological and economic problems, mainly as they related to building production. The definition of housing behavior and user needs with respect to imagining the building product, was delegated to an abstract approach often influenced by strong ideological conditioning. This implied that the innovative technologies and types imagined, did not correspond to real social conditions and to the real needs of operators and users of the times, who therefore continued to consider more convenient usages of traditional construction processes and technologies. The original contribution that this thesis is believed to offer is therefore the following:

Methodology

Identify and analyze the emergence of new behaviors and new housing needs starting from the epochal transformations, which are taking place.

2. Define specific characteristics through the analysis of selected case studies considered as the practices that best match and interpret the actual urban housing behaviors. 3. To meet the new housing behaviors, design a theoretical and experimental approach to the building organism capable of finalizing typological and technological innovation in the residential building, with a more convenient using traditional construction processes and technologies. In order to define the fundamental basis of the research, the study begins with the analysis of the reference context and framework of the research and the prefiguration of the macro scenarios. The general picture is analyzed with respect to global demographic trends, the situation of the building industry and the real estate market, and the dynamics underway from the point of view of social transformations and urban housing behavior. The purpose of this section is to establish the general characteristics of future directions of innovation developments in the building sector, according to the main urban sustainability criteria such as urban density, land consumption, industrialization and a reduction of the environmental footprint. In particular, the analysis of social dynamics and housing behavior in urban areas aims to identify the changes that are taking place, and to define their novel characteristics in relation to the economic and social conditions, which underpin them (collaborative economy and the individualization of society, the transformation of the labor market). Moreover the analysis put in relation to this indicates trends towards the

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

emerging phenomena in the real estate market (co-living) that seems to begin to interpret these new behaviors (house as a service). In the section dedicated to case studies, the most significant co-living startups are selected in accordance with the criterion that in addition to the provision of a housing service based on the collaborative economy model, should also provide a housing product somehow designed to interpret, from the typological and technological point of view, the housing requirements of its target. From this analysis, the research attempts to define recurring trends in the typological and technological features in co-living services. The scope is to structure a list of basic characteristics of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;house as a serviceâ&#x20AC;? to be used as a working tool in the following experimental phase. As a structural methodological approach, the research aimed a continuous confrontation with the co-financing companies as a tool to validate and orient research developments with respect to the world of production and the market. This has been implemented through an intensive applicative workshop involving the co-funding companies. This experimental section of the research, aimed to define three key moments: 1.

Based on the theoretical acquisitions achieved at this point, the research proposes the criteria of its theoretical approach in order to re-conceive the building organism to respond to new habitation behaviors: the dynamic between permanent and temporary in the use of the home, the process of typological hybridization based on the dynamic character of the macro- and micro-social structures, and the technological hybridization in the direction of the modularization/industrialization, and on-site off-site production. 2. Based on the defined theoretical approach, the research elaborates the meta-project consisting of the modular hybrid, building model based on grouping of building sub-systems according to the length of their life cycle. This allows typological dynamism to structurally separate permanent and changeable parts. At the same time it pushes the modularization of shorter life-cycle components. 3. The section ends with the analysis of all the possible application categories of the modular hybrid building, applied to urban residences according to the macro-structural assumptions identified in the initial analysis of the reference scenarios. The final part of the experimental section is the elaboration of a pilot project, co-designed in the conclusive intensive phase of the applicative workshop carried out with the active participation of the co-financing companies, along with a real subject of the home market as a service operating in the Italian and

1. INTRODUCTION

Milanese market. At the same time, a specific area has been identified in the city to locate the pilot project. The ownership of the land has also been directly involved, to take part in the pilot project workshop. The operatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s business model is initially analyzed. Competitive advantages and critical aspects of the service are identified through direct interaction with the operator. This interaction produces a matrix chart of performance specifications that constitutes the starting point for the definition of pre-planning requirements. Together with all the stakeholders involved in the real estate market and construction industry, the objectives of the pilot project are to verify, the feasibility of the application of modular hybrid approach to urban residence in its building, regulatory, industrialization and economic profitability aspects both for the manager and for land ownership. The research is then divided into the following four fundamental moments summarized in the scheme (fig. 1): 1.

Definition of the context and the reference scenario

2. Theoretical framework development. Selection and analysis of the indicator cases. 3. Research Production Validation. Proposal of a new theoretical model for the building organism based on modular hybrid systems.. 4. Permanent applicative workshop along the entire duration of the research, culminating in the final intensive phase of pilor project design.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 1. Research structure

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO 2.1 Technological culture and evolutionary scenarios: crisis of the production system and new housing paradigms Architectural design’s technology culture is characterized by its predictive capability. Theories have evolved which have been confirmed and validated resulting in innovative changes to design and construction. The residential design culture’s ability to interpret and amplify data in prefigured terms was developed in the 1970s. Addressing a cultural preference for reorganizational procedures, “Hybrid systems and technologies for architectural designs”[1] investigates alternatives to meeting habitation needs and verifies construction models that satisfy new requirements. For twenty years, architectural researchers have made innovations in new housing models (Schiaffonati and others 1994; Schiaffonati 2014). These innovations including those in the prefabrication and industrialization of building systems, management, maintenance and the upgrading of residential housing, represent the bases of this research.[2] By the 1990s and the end of the long social housing cycle in Italy, applied research projects and construction have shown a growing inadequacy in both heritage and new construction. The dynamics of demand however, continue to pose a challenge for design. The actual trend exposes the limits of current construction systems in meeting housing demands and contemporary societal needs.

Urbanization and global demographic trends

[1] The research, developed by the Research Group “Governance project and built environment enhancement” coordinated by Elena Mussinelli, is supported by - in addition to a Doctoral Research scholarship in Architecture, Built Environment and Building Engineering at Politecnico di Milano - three leading construction compa-

The estimated world population figure in 2050 will be 9.5 billion, compared to the current 7 billion, and the average urbanization rate will be approximately 65%, compared to the current 50%. It is forecast that one million new housing units will be necessary by 2025 (UN Habitat, 2016). Contrary to widespread public perception, the population growth of the last decades has coincided with an increase in global wealth. The global percentage of the population living in extreme poverty (<€1/day) has decreased by 50% in the last thirty years. The decline in birthrates as it continues in developing countries is inversely proportional to the rise in wealth and the increase in educational levels. This decline will continue until the population stabilizes (10 or 11 billion people), which will occur at or soon after the end of the century

nies (Gewiss Ltd, Progress Ltd, Valsir Ltd.). [2] Cf. Lucarelli M.T., Mussinelli E., Trombetta C. (edited by) (2015), “Cluster in Progress. La Tecnologia dell’architettura in rete per l’innovazione”, Maggioli Editore. This publication presents eight thematic clusters launched by the Scientific company SitdA in

2012. The “Construction production- construction product” cluster deal with technical and organizational conditions within which construction processes are realized to optimize the capacity of structures to meet market needs, to develop product and process innovations, and to promote the application of efficient practices and methodologies.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

(Gerland Raffery, 2014). Urbanization will thus continue to be related to economic growth. Current inefficient urbanization techniques result in densities of land use which double the occupation of land compared to population urbanization (Seto and others, 2012); a 20% population increase requires a 46% increase in urbanized soil. Rising workforce costs combined with a progressive decline in worker proficiency levels in developed countries highlights the advantages of off-site building and a greater industrialization of the building process. Prefabrication/ modularization has risen in the American market beginning in 2000 and continued increase is expected. The number of builders in 2011 who made/used prefabrication/modularization technologies for at least 50% of their projects has increased by 37% since 2009, a trending growth of 45% in 2013 (AA.VV 2011). Nonetheless, the production capacity of the industrialized/modularized construction sector is insufficient to satisfy the global housing demand. The construction of 829,000 of such housing units is forecast for 2017; 3.4 million produced units are predicted for 2050 (Kieran, Timberlake 2004) while demand is estimated to be a billion units in 2025 (UN Habitat 2016). The result is that the entire system of the prefabricated/modularized construction of buildings will be grossly inadequate (Wallance, 2015).

Productive capacity of the industrialized building sector

Global housing purchases have significantly diminished since the beginning of the 2007 Great Recession. Simultaneously however, the increasing trend of investment in renovations with technical and type adaptations has risen. Owner expenses on improvements and technical upgrades in the United States have increased by 40% in the last fifteen years (AA.VV 2015). Renovation strategies for European social housing are directed to reduce management costs, increase energy performance, improve building capacity to satisfy usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; new needs, and increasing density. Intensified uses mainly result from an increase in the number of family members (Gaspari Antonini 2013). End-users are predisposed to use existing structures rather than to purchase new accommodation, as evidenced in the rentals Report of 2015 by Nomisma-SoloAffitti, showing the increase in home rentals in 2015 in Italy versus 2014, with an increase of 10% in families who used a rental property. This reflects a change in the concept of property. More recent generations are strongly influenced by the sharing economy on many levels of contemporary living; a transitory ideal is now a permanent condition (Di Pasquale and others 2014). Many real estate agents are using an innovative business model to identify and fulfill new needs emerging from the spread of this new paradigm, primarily in terms of providing housing services throughout the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; life cycle, rather than selling square meters of housing.

Real estate market trends

Medium to long term scenarios

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

This data pictures a medium-term scenario with manifestly critical junctures. The inadequate industrialization levels in construction and consequent deficiencies, compared with anticipated demand, result in the persistence of the traditional building processes (low-tech content and unnecessarily excessive environmental impact). The environmental footprint produced by urbanization derives from the land preparation, the production and construction of housing units, infrastructure, services, etc. The methods and techniques used in design and construction determine the results. Different urban developments can result in greater efficiencies in densities, energy, and transportation. The type of housing has a massive impact on energy consumption, regardless of building techniques characterized by a low environmental impact. For example, multistoried buildings in dense urban contexts require less electricity than those of low-density districts. An apartment in a multistory building constructed with traditional technology is estimated to use an average of 40% less energy than an equivalent lodging in a single-family accommodation built with high energy-saving construction techniques. The saving increases up to 53%, when the multistoried building adopts the same technologies (Jonathan Rose Companies, 2011). This also applies to the emissions due to private transportation. Considering the three main components of emissions - transportation, heating and cooling, and electricity - a dense urban district produces 30% fewer emissions than a lowdensity district. The biggest saving is in the heating and cooling emissions - 34% less - followed by the electricity emissions - 25% less - and by transportation emissions - 17% less (Glaeser Edward 2009). It is necessary to consider the issue of land-use. Considering the predicted urban population increase by 2050 with consistent growth in the urban density, urban land-use rises 150%. Urban landuse will increase from 2.6% of the surface area (3.6 million square kilometers) to about 6.5% (9.6 million square kilometers). Thus, a marked discrepancy exists between demand (quantitative and qualitative) and supply. The main elements of risk evaluation that explain this divergence are: • • • •

Quantitative inability of the current production system to meet the expected demand; Global pressure to reduce environmental impacts from urbanization; Inefficient land-use; Obsolete models vis-à-vis contemporary living.

This research analyzes changes in long-term housing demand, in order to build an alternative model, which may be implemented with technique, type, and innovations in the construction process.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

2.2. Main trend indicators of emerging housing behaviors in urban contexts Far from any pretension of exhaustiveness and with reference to the extensive literature available in the sociological and economic fields concerning global cities, the research intends to limit itself to individualize the main trend indicators of the ongoing social and housing changing phenomena in urban contexts, and to outline possible strategies for interpretation. These interpretations will be used as criteria to select and analyze the case studies in the next part of the research. The delimitation of the range of research to residential typologies in globalized cities means concretely, that the contents and the acquisitions of the present study are referable and applicable in the same way to the urban area of Milan as well as Barcelona or Amsterdam or, on a different scale, to New York, Shanghai or Tokyo. This presupposes that before approaching the housing issue at least the common dynamics of these contexts should be individualized from an economic and social point of view. The aim is to bring out recurrent characteristics and analogous structural conditions despite the most disparate geographical and cultural locations. In fact, the relationship between the globalization of the economy and the rebirth of interest for urban contexts that occurred between the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the 21st, has been well analyzed by various urban scholars and sociologists. The worldwide system of trade has given rise to a need for a corresponding global, skilled, professional, working middle class able to move across different poles of the global network of cities (Sassen 1999; Ali and Dadush 2012; Dobbs et al. 2012). Mobility, temporality and fluidity are the main features of a new professional urban lifestyle. Among all writers Saskia Sassen was certainly the first and the most lucid interpreter of global dynamics in economics and their close relationship with urban contexts and their territories. In his analysis some aspects are highlighted that are important for the definition of the reference field of the present research: •

Social innovations and “fluid” living behaviors in globalized urban contexts

The causal relationship between the globalization of the economy, enormous growth in the need for high-level professional services (finance, trade, insurance, communication, design) and consequent concentration, in the cities included in the globalized economic system (global cities), of the professional class necessary to provide these services.[3]

[3] Sassen, Saskia. Cities in a World Economy (Sociology for a New Century Series) (pp. 114-115). SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition. “At the heart of this deep structural trend is the fact that even the most material

economic sectors (mines, factories, transport systems, hospitals) today are buying more insurance, accounting, legal, financial, consulting, software programming, and other such services for firms”.

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

•

Although global cities maintain each of the specific characteristics linked to the productive and cultural traditions of the gold areas of reference, what unites them is a certain homogenization of urban lifestyles due to the concentration of professional categories linked to the global system of exchange.[4] A common feature of the growth of many global cities is for example, the tendency to promote dense and concentrated urban development,[5] caused both by the need to facilitate professional face-to-face interaction,[6] and by the need to guarantee the globalized professional classes a high standard of quality of life. In this system of cities connected at a global level and with similar characteristics of lifestyles and professional skills, job placement is in fact a fluid motion and characterized by very strong mobility, not only characteristic the entry level, but constant throughout the professional path. This implies a fluid and temporary perception of residency in increasingly large age classes that go well beyond the age of training, extending for about a decade or more into post-graduate working life. The age range for such a fluid and temporary residency in globalized urban contexts is now extended from 18 to 35 years with a tendency to widen even further. (S. Sassen, 1988)

These profound and changing dynamics of the social structure in globalized cities generate a transformation in the conception of urban living and housing. This is particularly evident in younger generations, who are natively connected and globalized, and who tend more and more to reproduce behavioral and similar dynamics in every node of the globalized urban system. The condition of temporality is not perceived as a negative factor, but on the contrary as the ideal condition to enter and to be integrated into the global professional system. Feeling free from constraints and able to evaluate different job opportunities at any time anywhere worldwide is nowadays a definitive plus factor for a young professional. The professional mobility, the affirmation of English as a global lingua franca, the strong lowering of international travel costs, the endemic [4] ibidem: “Globalization homogenizes standards—for managing, for accounting, for building state-of-the-art office districts, and so on. But it needs diverse specialized economic capabilities.” [5] Ibidem: “Recognizing the value of the specialized differences of cities and urban regions in today’s global economy shows how the deep economic history of a place matters for the type

of knowledge economy that a city or a city - region ends up developing . This goes against the common view that globalization homogenizes economies”. [6] ibidem: “The most common and easiest answers as to why cities became strategic in a global corporate economy are the ongoing need for face-toface communications and the need for creative classes and inputs.”

[7] Juho Hamari, Mimmi Sjöklint, Antti Ukkonen The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption, 2015, stable URL: https://people.uta.fi/~kljuham/2015-hamari_at_al-the_ sharing_economy.pdf “The phenomenon of the sharing economy thus emerges from a number of technological developments that have simplified sharing of both physical and nonphysical goods and ser-

vices through the availability of various information systems on the Internet. We will thus view the “sharing economy” primarily through the lens of information technology.” “Moreover, CC operates through technological platforms, such as a website or mobile app, yet relies heavily on social dynamics for the actual sharing and collaboration. In fact, Wiertz and de Ruyter (2007) propose that firms that own and operate

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

diffusion of accessibility to the wed, are the structural conditions that support this new transnational professional class that conceive temporariness more and more a permanent and positive condition of living. The residential building stock currently available is largely unsuitable to provide housing solutions specifically designed to fit the ongoing mutations of social and interpersonal urban relationships. The case studies analyzed still represent an infinitesimal portion of the entire residential corpus. They are early attempts to identify the typological, technological and management formats deemed suitable for emerging housing needs. However in the most of the cases new “fluid” housing behaviors are hosted in a “rigid” and obsolete building heritage. This condition of “forced adaptation” tends to favor processes of social isolation, which in the worst cases turn into a sort of segregation de facto of the individuals. The enormous spread of “virtual” relationships conveyed by social networks could be caused in part by these contradictory housing conditions. Nevertheless it indicates a growing unattended demand for sharing experience induced by the contemporary urban condition. In fact all the “house as a service” players analyzed in the case studies, define the most important part of their “commercial promise” precisely as the possibility of the new housing model to create proximity relations and to access a neighborhood community. This appears absolutely evident just in the analysis of their web site home pages in which smiling chatting young people have substitute the old fashion real estate architectural renderings.

Obsolescence of the existing building heritage, induced segregation and social demand of “proximity”

Sharing economy and the new ownership paradigm in the new generations

The emergence and continuous growth of the sharing economy or new economy or collaborative economy in a growing number of commodity sectors, has been possible in recent years thanks to the diffusion of Internet 2.0 and to the evolution and simplification of the payment methods via Internet and online transactions. (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010)[7] There is therefore a certain direct causal relationship between the diffusion of Internet 2.0 and the sharing economy. In Europe in 2015 the value of online transactions linked to these

such online platforms do not control the actual sharing at all. Instead, the development is led by social dynamics, such as enjoyment and self-marketing of a community.” “Social commerce thus relies on platforms with peer-topeer interaction, which in turn rely on users being motivated to continue using and engaging through social networking sites (SNS). SNS and social commerce share common ground

as both involve peer-to-peer interaction on social media, although the latter also include mercantile features (Ellison & boyd, 2013; Wang & Zhang, 2012). The motivation of users to continue participating in social commerce is multifaceted, and often relies on the perception of individual enjoyment (also through relatedness) and economic benefits.” “We operationalize these motivational dimensions (of CC) as

follows: for intrinsic motivations we consider (a) enjoyment, (b) sustainability and for extrinsic motivations, (c) economic benefits, and (d) reputation. The following subsections discuss the variables and hypotheses in more detail.” “Recent developments suggest that CC platforms are used to foster a sustainable marketplace (Phipps et al., 2013) that “optimizes the environmental, social, and economic

consequences of consumption in order to meet the needs of both current and future generations” (Luchs et al., 2011, p. 2).” “In sharing economy platforms different ideological and communal tendencies, such as anti-establishment sentiment, freedom of information, and in the case of CCs, especially the greenness of the activity, are considered important inter- nalized drives for behavior.”

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

platforms reached 28 million euros, 100% more than in 2014. (Eurobarometer, European Commission 2015) In countries where the highest penetration rate of the network is highest, the sharing of consumption with their business model is also common. In the same way this can be applied to the economies of individual urban contexts within the same national context. Over the last ten years, transactions have gradually reduced the need to involve intermediaries by progressively simplifying the procedures for transferring money. The final transaction horizon is the instantaneous transaction between private parties through a messaging system available on mobile devices: smartphone, smartwatch. In the Chinese market, platforms such as Alipay and WeChat pay already allow the exchange of money between private individuals and peer-to-peer financing services, i.e. without institutional intermediaries. From the point of view of the dynamics underlying the success and spread of the collaborative economy, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can be identified. The intrinsic ones are mainly linked to the pleasure of the experience (enjoyment) and to sustainability, while the extrinsic ones are linked to reputational motivations and economic convenience. (Hamari, Sjรถklint, Ukkonen, 2015). The increasing diffusion in the main European urban centers of bike sharing and car sharing services reveals a steady and progressive growth of the business to a consumer model with respect to the peer-to-peer model (Demary, 2014). According to the peer-to-peer model the provider offers only an exchange platform but does not provide the service, (e.g. AirBnB, BlaBla car, etc), in the business-to-consumer sharing economy model. In addition to the platform the service is also provided. The recent success in Italy of services such as Car2go, Bikeme, and their equivalents in many other European cities, shows how the business to consumer shared consumption is now culturally accepted and practised. Considering the aforementioned dynamics, it seems to be possible to state that one of the main cultural effects of the progressive spread of the collaborative economy in increasingly numerous sectors of the economy, is a progressive transformation of the property paradigm. Gradually it appears to shift from the possession of a product to the availability of a service. Having a service at any time is in fact equivalent to possessing the asset necessary to provide the service. Being able to do without actually owning the asset can be perceived as even more advantageous because it does not involve investments. Above all it does not incur maintenance charges or costs such as taxes, bureaucratic, administrative and disposal at the end of the life cycle. Moreover, seen as a whole the collaborative economy is a huge advantage in terms of the global use of resources because if the product is the service and not the asset, a single asset can provide the service to many more subjects accordingly: to have the same service level takes a lot less in assets. It has been calculated that a private car is used for about 7% of the total time, while in car-sharing this percentage rises to over 40% / 50%. (Monitor Deloitte, 2017; Nick Gibbs, 2016). Consequently, there is also a considerable advantage from the point of view

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

of profits. A service provider takes charge of asset ownership but with larger volumes and large-scale economies both in the initial investment and in the management costs. In addition, the perceived value of the service that eliminates purchase and management costs and expenses is much higher even in terms of market valuation. On the other hand it makes sense that a substantially more efficient economic system that reduces the consumption of resources with the same services provided, increases the economic benefits for all stakeholders. A brief mention should be made of the effects of these socio-economic changes on the structuring of family relationships. These are due to the evident importance that the family structure within a society has in defining and shaping the housing typologies in every historical and cultural context.

Individualization of the social structure

It is important in the introduction to this paragraph to clarify that the intention of the research has been to remain true to the evidence of real phenomena, and to avoid any ideological confrontation among abstract and pre-constituted models and anti-models. This in order to maintain the research on the level of the factual “physiology” of the observed phenomena, and to avoid trespassing in the context of a “social planning” considered to be anachronistic and harmful, regardless of whether it is ideologically oriented in one direction rather than in the opposite one.[8] Family models reflect the socio-economic structures of the cultures to which they belong. The nuclear family (father, mother and children) was the basis of the consumer society of the twentieth century (Sapio A., 2010). According to some (Laslet, 1984) its spread even began with the corresponding proliferation of industrialization processes from the nineteenth century onwards. The emergence of “fluid family identities” corresponds to the already highlighted structural fluidity of contemporary socio-economic relationships also in the context of socio-affective relationships (P.Di Nicola 2009, Z. Bauman, 2004). However the new “cultures of the relationship” that have in fact been affirmed in recent decades should not be read in the sense of a dissolution of family relationships. They must be considered as a redefinition that recovers a more extended relational, not unlike those typical of pre-industrial historical contexts, with a growing importance of the solidarity aspects with respect to the

[8] The process of “individualization” summarizes and summarizes all the specific characteristics of family relationships existing today (Gidden 1995; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 1996; Beck 2000; Bauman 2004; Pocar and Ronfani 2008; Zanatta 2008). By individualization it was meant the enhancement of individual autonomy, of freedom of choice, of subjectivity,

which so strongly impregnates modern and contemporary culture (Zanatta, 2010). However, the changes taking place do not demonstrate the end of the family but on the contrary its persistent vitality as a need for strong socio-affective relations, by adapting itself to the changed socio-economic conditions (Goody, 2000).

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

consumerist ones (Sapio, 2010). The historical evolution of the concept of family has undergone modifications and variations always connected to the socioeconomic structuring of the corresponding historical period. The nuclear family is only the result of a particular historical moment that seems today to be in the middle of a structural evolutionary step. In the tribes of antiquity the definition of “brother” indicated for example also cousins of varying degrees, living in the same house. In the same way in the rural communities of the counties belonging to a hierarchical noble society (headed by a count), the “family” relations included several parental generations as well as groups of laborers and “peasants” (Solinas PG, 1987). Correspondingly, the residential typologies have been modified following the evolution of the nature and extension of these “family” relationships. In the current framework, the nuclear family model has entered a crisis especially in relation to the evident limits manifested in relation to the socio-affective growth of the children and to the ever-increasing problems of the isolation of the elderly (Sapio A, 2010). However, the changes taking place do not demonstrate the end of the family, but on the contrary its persistent vitality as a need for strong socio-affective relationships, manifested by its continuous adaptation to the changed socio-economic conditions (Goody, 2000). The modification of housing models in the sense of their greater adherence to the development and evolution of ongoing family relationships, can only contribute to their more coherent development that goes beyond any instrumental comparison between models and anti-models. Abstract and pre-constituted ideologies, satisfy and materialize the innate need for the completeness of the socio-affective relations of each individual in all phases of their existence. The socio-economic changes under way have accelerated and made deep mutations emerge even in the affective and family relationships. Mutations for others began many decades ago starting from the seventies of the twentieth century. The general trend data in all advanced societies is represented by the increase in the number of families due to the decrease in the average number of members mainly, which in turn is due to the increase in the number of singles (one person nuclear families) that in urban contexts already constitutes the majority of family units. [In Italy, single-member households in 1971 comprised 12.9% of total households, in 2016 they became 30.6. (Source Istat). In Milan in 2001 they represented 32% while in 2016 52.8% are dubbed sources Istat, Censis) The data is similar for all urban contexts where now the percent of families formed by a single component is around 50% of the total of the nuclei. In 2015, 45% of the US adult resident population lived alone (source: www.census.gov)]. The data also emphasizes the progressive aging of the population and the consequent increase in the period of life of people left alone after the death of the spouse. From the sociological point of view, many scholars share the idea that the process of “individualization” summarizes all the specific characteristics of the varieties of family relationships that exist today (Gidden 1995; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 1996; Beck 2000; Baumann 2004, Pocar

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

and Ronfani 2008, Zanatta 2008). By individualization it means “the valorization of individual autonomy, of freedom of choice, of subjectivity, which so strongly impregnates modern and contemporary culture” (Zanatta, 2010). For several decades now, domestic space appears to be dynamically evolving both in the nature of interpersonal relationships and in its relationship with the use of living spaces. Already in 1972 Peter Laslett identified this change by defining the concept of housefull as the spatial set of several “domestic groups” that reside in the same building or set of premises. (Laslett 1985). Laslett uses it to define the spatial physical relationships generated by the new modes of socioaffective relationships and of familiar forms including those “without structure” (one person nuclear families). During the last decade of the last century, and especially in the first decade of the 21st century, various methods of aggregation and housing were followed, in which particular symbolic value was given to common spaces and shared principles of life in solidarity.[9] More codified forms of this type of aggregation such as co-housing have been extensively investigated and analyzed, and have also become legislative and regulatory formalizations.[10] Despite in co-housing the relation between private and common spaces could be somehow compared, what is completely different from co-living is that the co-housing residents are typically involved in the planning and design process of the house (Shafique 2018). These evolutionary experiments of co-habitation modalities that emerged in the last decades are not the subject of this research. What is relevant here is that this evolutionary movement of housing modalities is based on the concept of the “co-residence group” conceived as a group of people who permanently share living spaces without necessarily sharing domestic activities (Barile KS, Brandon JC, 2004).[11] According with the considerations made on the dynamic and structurally changing nature of the relationships underlying the current micro-social structures, any “codification” that tends to regulate and fix the relationship between new socio-affective relationships and living space can be considered outside the topic with respect to the scope of this research. In fact this will be equivalent to an interpretation of new phenomena using parameters that belong to a structurally different scenario. The concept

[9] Laslett proposes an interesting differentiation between family, domestic group and housefull conceived as the group of several domestic groups that reside in the same building or set of premises. Laslett (1985) proposes a first classification defining also a new family form “without structure” (family with

a single component). The “spatial-residential” criterion supports the “relational” criterion (filiation-paternity, conjugation). [10] The Cambridge Group (Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure), with Tony Wrigley first resorted in the 1960s to the criteri-

Domestic housefull and co-dividuality groups

on of co-residency in their family surveys. [11] Barrel K.S., Brandon J.C. (2004): “A co-residence is a group of people who regularly share living quarters without necessarily sharing house-hold activities (what Laslett in 1972 defined as “ housefull”).”

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

of housefull that Laslett introduced had precisely the sense of avoiding any conceptual rigidity, assuming the living space simply as a domestic physical perimeter “full” of a changing variety of social-affective relationships of varying degrees, not merely codifiable but in their “dynamic” feature. In recent studies the idea of co-dividuality (Liotta S.J. 2016; Liotta S.J., Imperadori M. 2018) expresses very well the balance that should be pursued between the individual sphere and access to social relations within the same “housefull” perimeter. The full possibility to have a private “housing cockpit”, reflects the individualized structure of society. As a direct consequence of this individualization process, the strong need for social connection emerges, which should be provided as a voluntary possibility and never as a co-active induction (dialogue with S.J. Liotta, March 2018).

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

2.3. House as a service: emerging subjects in the real estate market based on the provision of living services during the life cycle The profound mutations induced by the collaborative economy in the labor market and in the social and micro-social structure of relationships are beginning to influence the housing market in a qualitatively significant way. Because of the novelty of the phenomenon, a specific scientific literature is not yet available. Consequently, we have limited ourselves to outline and set up possible lines of interpretation by verifying how the consolidated characteristics of the sharing economy can apply not only to a consumer good such as a car or a bicycle, but also to a property such as a house that presents undoubtedly important differences and specific features. In recalling the parallel between mobility and housing, it can be said that for urban transport there are both peer-to-peer and business-to-consumer models. For example, a peer-to-peer shared mobility service is BlaBlaCar, whose business model is based on supplying only the exchange platform and services, i.e. cars, are actually provided by users. On the other hand companies such as Car2go, Enjoy, Sharenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;go, provide services for shared mobility business-to-consumer in which, in addition to the sharing platform, are also provided physical assets that allow the users to get the service, i.e. the cars. In real estate, AirBnB interprets the peer-to-peer model, providing only the exchange platform for the shared use of properties owned by users. The service provided by AirBnB is not exactly of a residential type, as it is mainly for tourism and temporary use. In the context of real housing services it will be seen how, instead, the new housing modalities come from and are closely connected to the radical changes that have occurred in recent years in the world of work, especially for younger generations. The condition of fluidity and extreme mobility that characterizes the labor market in globalized urban contexts, has completely reconfigured the real estate format of office facilities. As we have seen, one of the main reasons behind the rebirth of cities in the globalization phase of the economy is the accessibility of professional face-to-face relationships that the urban context allows. In a so structured labor market especially for certain professional categories linked to creativity and communication, the need to access young creative energies clashes with the impossibility of young people to access central urban contexts

Co-working and co-living. From the new professional identity formats to the new urban housing modalities

[12] Talkington E. (2016), The Rise of Co-Living: Moving Beyond the College Dorm, Internet Article. â&#x20AC;&#x153;With rising housing costs and a more mobile popu-

lation, co-living arrangements are moving from an informal market of Craigslist ads to a more established, investor-driven real estate opportunity.

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

due to the high real estate value.[12] On this real need, co-working companies boomed by re-conceiving the work space market by integrating all the services connected to the working activity with the physical availability of individual workstations: professional domicile, secretariat, meeting rooms, etc. But the main intangible asset provided by these subjects is precisely the network of professional relationships generated by the simultaneous presence of several professional subjects within the same co-working physical space. The face-toface (professional-social) relationships are therefore the main attraction of this new format of real estate service based on providing service+product in the field of work spaces. It is important to start from the phenomenon of co-working to introduce the corresponding innovations in the housing sector, which are the subject of this paragraph: the co-living. In fact it is precisely from co-working that were budded similar formats to replicate in the housing sector, the same approach providing integrated office services as experiments in co-working. Moreover these new housing services were addressed to the same target market: young professionals who live with fluidity, temporariness and extreme international mobility as structural conditions of their working condition, and who identify their main professional capital in the opportunities of relationship and exchange. Often the lower level of the entry level salary for a professional doesn’t allow young people to afford rent fees in central urban areas.[13] Therefore co-living is the most coherent conclusion of co-working, providing a comprehensive, urban life service for these targets. The impossibility of meeting the high costs of city center housing, and the need to always maintain contact with the greater relational density area of the urban context, are the main reasons why the coliving is transforming the housing market from the traditional real-estate market to an integrated, housing services market. Also the main promise that these subjects convey in their communication is referred to as social relationships and an intense experience of urban life, which can be accessed through this format, rather than by the quality of the real living spaces. The convergence of these housing modalities with respect to the innovative methods linked to the working environment introduced by co-working is also the consequence of the virtualization of the professional activity, which is in fact less and less tied to a specific physical location: it is increasingly “resident” based on personal and mobile devices, with content shared in the cloud and accessible anywhere, anytime, thanks to the increasing extension of network coverage, especially in urban contexts. In terms of a living model, co-living has been defined as an extension of the “student dorm” accommodation format in relation to the professional life.[14] In this framework the potential of student housing to shape and influence the new emerging housing behavior is very strong – also in terms of the regeneration of urban context.[15]

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Ultimately both the traditional real estate players and the co-living players base their business models on the financial exploitation of land. The difference lies in how the market target is conceived and in the awareness of what is actually offered on the market. The analysis of the websites of the two types of player reveals this difference more clearly than any other element. In the sites of traditional real estate, the players dominate the renderings of buildings and the interiors of apartments (almost always empty or with human figures in outline and “in laying “). In co-living sites the absolute protagonists are the people (young) who socialize with each other: their smiling faces, their emotional reactions, their being together. This is a symptom that reveals the substance of the difference between the two approaches. The traditional real estate sells products: the house to live. The co-living sells a service: living! The house is therefore no longer conceived as a “machine for living”, but as a housing service. The main consequences in terms of business, as well as the reason for the rapid spread of this model, are the conceptual and economic simplifications for the user, and a much higher rate of space exploitation. From the user’s point of view, in fact, taking advantage of housing services frees them from the obligations that would be faced with a traditional contract of rent, or as owners (condominium fees, utilities, connection, cleaning, taxes, etc.). Furthermore, with this model the user finds the advantage of being able to establish himself in central areas of the city, perhaps close to his professional center of gravity. Moreover the users can limit their economic commitment by adopting a housing style consistent with its “fluidity” in professional conditions, thanks to the freedom to at any time end the housing service subscription without any penalty, and to be free to move elsewhere in case of new and more convenient job opportunities. From the point of view of land rent, the elimination of low-income rooms (living room, kitchen, etc.), the consequent partition of the space into several individual income units, and the additional offer of “Services” of management, allows the doubling or even tripling of the gross rental incomes, compared to the traditional models of real estate (rent, construction and sale). The scarcity of available of data and the greater heterogeneity of the contexts does not allow scientific documentation of this statement. It is however possible to verify in individual cases, the differences between the values of the traditional market and housing as a service offered in the same contexts.

Characteristics of the housing services offered and management model

[13] Albizzani E. (2012), Filiera produttiva e tecnologie per l’abitare, in: Techne n.4 Housing Sociale, Firenze University Press, pp. 16-17. “The continued growth of residential demand, coupled with the significant decline of the housing market, is encouraging the development of many procedural and constructive experiments

Article. stable url: https://www. bdcnetwork.com/blog /student-housing-trends-transformation-co-living-college;

on the theme of affordable housing for a range of users increasingly unable to access home ownership” … “Moreover what emerges is how the demand for housing is increasingly expressed by young people, who represent the class whose income is gradually decreasing in comparison to the older population.”

[14] Clay K. (2017) What it’s really like to live in a dorm for adults, Internet article, stabel url: https://www.citylab.com/ life/2017/02/what-its-really-like-to-live-in-a-dorm-foradults/516036/; Breen J., Lee D. (2017) Student Housing Trend: The transformation of co-living in college. Building design+construction, Internet

[15] Bellini O.E. (2008) Student Housing_1 Atlante ragionato della residenza universitaria contemporanea, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna, p.19.

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

From rent to housing account, from tenant to member of a community

Numerous scholars have analyzed the ideological component underlying participation in the sharing economy (Agrawal, & Rao, 2013; Metzgar & Maruggi, 2009; Hennig- Thurau et al., 2007). This is not a specific political or cultural orientation but a widespread anti-establishment sentiment, connected to collective behaviors and methods of relational exchange, perceived as more sustainable from the environmental point of view and the use of resources. This context determines in those who participate in the collaborative economy a sense of belonging to a virtual community that shares a perceived lifestyle as well as a more ideologically sustainable way of living. This vaguely ideological affiliation to a virtual community intrinsically connected to the sharing economy, is materialized in a very concrete way in the physical cohabitation of the users (coliving) that the home service providers propose. From this first point an important second concept is derived, which regards a change in the conceptualization of the user: traditional real estate considers the user simply as a tenant customer. The co-living players consider the user a “member” (member / user) part of their community. Therefore it also changes the commercial relation between housing offer-and-demand: the classic lease is conceptually replaced by the signing in a “housing services account,” which no longer formalizes the relationship between the tenant and the physical space, but establishes the affiliation of the user to the community and defines the housing services to which the user has the right to access thanks to his “subscription” housing. This conceptually implies the independence of being a member of the community from the used physical place (apartment, room, living pod). In fact in some cases this “membership” becomes physically portable, and potentially usable in different cities (Kasita).[16]

Limits and critical issues of co-living format

The ever-widening range of products and an ever-increasing number of operators offering co-living solutions on the market show that this new format of housing services is the most important innovation of recent years. It is certainly a trend not determined by a seasonal fashion but linked to social structural factors. Therefore it is destined to become determining factor that will completely transform the entire real estate market. However there are several cases in which business initiatives of this type have not been successful. It is interesting to question the

[16] Mc Grath J. (2015) Moving to a new city? Kasita wants to let you bring your entire tiny apartment. Internet Article. digitaltrends.com: “The apartment fits into a “rack” that houses other apartments, and each individual unit can slide in and out to fit in a new rack, which can live on unused lands that can’t be developed. Austin, Texas will get its first rack in spring 2016. There are several other cities on the list

for future racks, so one day you could hit “move” on your app, and the company will take your whole apartment from Austin to Portland, New York, Tucson, Seattle, or even Stockholm. At least one thing will be completely familiar when you get to the new city: your entire apartment. [17] Noto A. (2016), Can WeWork’s risky `co-living’ plan avoid the mistakes of failed Campus? In-

ternet article. www.bizjournals. com: “Creating community is very expensive. At the Four Seasons, you walk in and everyone knows your name. It’s a sense of community but it’s expensive,” Taplin said. “The housing crisis isn’t something you’re going to solve with a low-margin property management business.” [18] Shafique A. (2018) Co-Living and the Common Good,

RSA Royal Society of Art, Action And Research Centre, London: “The unique selling point of co-living is that it can foster a lasting sense of community among diverse residents. But as co-living developers are discovering, this isn’t easy – and especially not ‘at scale’ in a commercial setting, without a ready-made community of driven and likeminded individuals.”

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

possible reasons in these cases, to understand the limits of the co-living model with respect to the more extended concept of housing as a service. Although it has not been demonstrated that the quality of socialization in the communities that are generated by this kind of housing services is essential for the success of the proposed model, it is rather clear that too much distance between “community promise” and the reality of the offer can be the reason for business failure. A too evident difference between the promise of higher quality social and interpersonal relationships, and a reality made up of anonymity and a substantial absence of any sense of belonging, is one of the main causes for failure of co-living initiatives.[17] This may mean that something must be done to make possible a sense of micro-community belonging, but at the same time it could mean that aspects of relational quality perceived as forced or belonging to a fake community, in the communication contents, should not be excessively emphasized in the commercial offer.[18] The current co-living proposes a housing modality perceived as provisional and necessary in a certain phase of the user’s professional and social life. This presupposes that, later on in the career, greater financial resources and more stable working conditions can allow the same users a traditional housing condition. This approach therefore still presupposes a hierarchy of values in favor of the traditional residence model: the traditional apartment is considered to be the primary objective, waiting for which the co-living scenario is a sort of necessary waiting room. Differently, all socio-economic indicators tell us that the condition of fluidity and temporariness will increasingly be the prevailing condition of social life and will even be considered preferable and more reassuring than traditional stability and habitation. In fact, in the United States more and more people over the age of fifty want to move from traditional housing conditions to these new forms of housing services. (R. Stepler, 2017). The perception of permanent temporariness is true above all if referring to the millennials, i.e. to the generations born after 2000. For this category the temporariness and fluidity of professional and social relationships is even perceived as more reassuring because it is not binding and always reversible. In a sense, the acknowledgment of economic and social conditions and the definition of residential and housing modalities consistent with them, is a factor of stability and security. But this would imply a different approach, as an offer of housing services that is not limited to a certain period of users’ lives but one which can be extended to all phases of life. This implies dimensional scalability, the aggregability and re-configurability of typologies, a provision of optional services also aimed at families and assistance for the most aged users. (M. Teo, 2017; V.Chalier, 2017). The combination of the lack of community identity and the perception of “poor” provision of the housing solution proposed with respect to the traditional residency, are the main causes for the failure of some commercial co-living proposals

Lack of community identity as a key factor in cases of failure of the co-living format

2. REFERENCE SCENARIO

2.4. Conclusions

The contents and conclusions of this chapter could be summarized as follows: 1.

In the last decade a series of economic factors have determined a structural modification of the social and economic conditions particularly evident in the globalized urban contexts.

2. In particular, the global financial crisis and the diffusion of Internet 2.0 have radically changed the ways in which individuals participate in the economic cycle, encouraging the growth of the collaborative economy (sharing economy) which has spread and is spreading in many sectors, tending to replace the traditional forms of commercial exchange. 3. The processes of the globalization of markets have been enormously accelerated by the progressive and endemic networking of people and activities, thanks to the widespread diffusion of Internet 2.0. This has generated an integrated commercial system of global and connected cities in which social and behavioral dynamics can be compared and comparable, even to the differences due to geographical and cultural distances. 4. The initial model of the collaborative economy based on the peer-to-peer scheme has gradually turned into a business-to-consumer scheme, when the service platform also provides the actual product. 5. In the housing sector the collaborative economy has emerged with the birth of subjects who interpret the new social and labor market conditions in urban areas, and provide a product and service (habitation as a service) specially designed for new generations who find themselves living the everyday life of these structural changes. 6. In the real estate markets where these subjects have been operating the evolution of the business model for a long time, they have gradually been led to modify the traditional building product according to the service offered, both from the typological point of view (in a more consistent way) and from the perspective of technology (in a less relevant way). 7.

The case of DOVE VIVO was followed by an Italian start-up of new generation housing services. Through interviews and a direct exchange, the specific characteristics, strengths, weaknesses and lines of future development were analyzed. The end of the phase of direct exchange, aimed at analyzing the case by proposing that the company participate in the first person in the experimental phase of this research.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MANAGMENT

The main objective of the present research, as well as its main contribution in the technical and scientific advancement with respect to innovation in the reference sector, consists in sharing the entire research path with manufacturing and management companies directly involved in developing a theoretical approach that anticipate horizons of technological and typological innovation of the residential building adopting an experimental approach already oriented to product implementation. This objective has also substantially conditioned the analysis of the panorama of the experiences and research already underway and consistent to the aims and premises of the research. Given the prevailing orientation of research towards the elaborative and experimental aspect, it was therefore not considered to develop a full-scale documentary survey on the case studies, but rather to select in a highly targeted and instrumental way the most suitable examples to support the developments research experiments. Therefore have been intentionally excluded from the survey all the academic, prototype or pure research experiences, to strongly restrict the analysis to realities already present and operative on the market, that had specific management, typological and technological characteristics. This selection has been shared with the companies involved in the research in order to be strictly functional to the parallel work of laboratory processing in which they were involved. For a proper methodological clarification, the selection parameters adopted are listed below: •

Fig. 02. Rents for all-inclusive co-living accommodation and a same area studio apartment in New York and Washington (picture source data source Property Website Axiometrics).

•

Presence and operation on the market. This ensures the projects to be supported by a business model and concrete market reviews. Management Model. Management criteria for the housing model similar to the one adopted by the management company involved into the research experimentation workshop. (co-living) Typological / technological criterion. Projects developed specifically for the specific target of the housing model.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

3.1 The co-living phenomenon

In the first part of the research we have seen co-living as the main novelty of the real estate market. Moreover how co-living represents the very first commercial application of the principles of sharing economy to urban housing and the first concrete interpretation of emerging housing behavior in urban contexts was considered. For this reason it is essential for the purpose of this research to deepen the world of co-living in order to identify a possible core of typological and technological features that characterize it. This core is the basic reference point for the proactive part of the research, aiming to outline a theoretical framework for innovation in technology and a typology of architecture oriented to follow the needs and requirements that actual emerging housing behaviors are urging. Co-living. A form of housing that combines private living space with shared communal facilities. Unlike atshares and other types of shared living arrangements, co-living explicitly seeks to promote social contact and build community. Co-living encompasses a diverse range of models, from cohousing mutuals to options in the private rental sector. (Shafique 2018) As co-living is a relatively recent phenomenon, few specific examples of literature are available to properly reference a scientific framework of this new way of housing. Therefore the present research could only base the analysis on the evidence of the market and the web sources, in order to individuate the elements that can be considerate of trend indicators useful to the scope of the research. It is left to future and more specific researches to see the scientific systematization of the co-living phenomenon in its entirety. Based on the evidence of the market and web sources, co-living can actually be considered the most important start-up trend in real estate. It represents a new lower step at which millennials and young professionals can access the accommodations centers of cities. In fact the business model allows offers of all inclusive rent fees for significantly lower rates compared to the studio market in the same urban areas (Talkington and Plowman 2016). As usual in start-up experimental early times, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the business model is still pending. At this stage all the different players are competing to win the new market. All of them are aware of the potential, and they are willing even to be â&#x20AC;&#x153;burning cashâ&#x20AC;? to become the worldwide reference brand for the emerging co-living market. Competition by every specific brand proposes different approaches and packages in order to characterize their own interpretation of co-living model.

Co-living as a sample of emerging housing behavior in urban context

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

3.2. Relevant co-living players

Scope and methodology of listing co-living players.

The procedure for the deepening of the co-living market has been structured on the following steps: listing the main players; classifying them by macro business model parameters; selecting the core of payers whose features and products are effective to the research scopes, and finally a deeper analysis of their business model, and the housing service / product they offer. According with the findings of the first part of the research, these phenomena have emerged in the most advanced globalized urban contexts (New York, London, etc.). The first listing of co-living players enumerates the main physical dimensional characteristics of the service provided in its typological-technological and management aspects. The first step for listing was developed by comparing the most important ranking lists available on the web. The main criteria to compose the list, included players that were actually offering accommodation packages consistent with the principle of sharing economy as applied to urban housing: urban location, the combination of individual and common spaces and services, the promise of community networking, and a digital platform based service. We have excluded from this list all the companies or websites that provide co-living locations in extra urban areas targeting the wide community of nomad co-livers, co-workers. Platforms like Selina, Sun and Co., Angkor HUB, Unsettled, Hera Hub, Casa Netural, Mokrin House and Ideas, Stokeworks, Coconat, Sende, CoCoHub, Swiss

Fig. 03. The most important co-living spaces by country (source: www.getkin.io/ coliving-list).

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Escape, ReSrtation, and many others are basically oriented to merge traveling holidays, remote working and co-living community experiences. As they operate in locations outside the urban context, they were considered to be out of the present research range.[19] To have an overview of the actual co-living market situation we needed first to list the most important players of co-living that operate in urban contexts and to classify them according with macro categories concerning reference market, business model, number of locations, housing services and the housing product provided. A first important difference between co-living companies relates to their business and management models. We differentiate them according to their level of involvement in the ownership of the real estate product offered: from the direct management of their own housing stock, to the management service of otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s real estate property, to the peer-to-peer platform for owners of shared spaces to meet co-living users. Generally speaking we can say that the more the player is linked with the property of the housing stock the more the housing itself is purpose designed to meet the specific co-living housing needs. From co-living purposed design construction, from greenfield in the case of direct management, to the deep refurbishment of an entire, existing building adapted for shared housing. Management services are more common in case of single co-living apartments also purpose refurbished.

Fig. 04. Amount of co-living spaces by city (source: www. getkin.io/coliving-list).

[19] http://getkin.io/coliving-list https://www.abetterlemonadestand.com/co-working-coliving-spaces/ https://medium.com/futureof-work/top-10-coliving-spaces-in-europe-8521bfea5ecf

Buisiness/ management models

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

The biggest companies operate a direct or service management of entire buildings both as new constructions or re-used buildings. A special consideration should be made for the two biggest co-living players listed. YOU+ and HARBOUR. They operate only on the Chinese market and only manage their own purposed design buildings. What makes the Chinese co-living quite different compared to Western cases is the financial support for rent that banks give to the developers. In fact banks anticipate for the developer the entire amount of one year’s rent. The tenants then pay their rent plus 5% interest directly to the bank every month . This pattern basically allows an easy way to finance new construction of this type. However the financial based model is quite dangerous as it is already causing an artificial growth of the rents. The other most relevant co-living companies OUTSIDE, OUTPOST, ROAM, WELIVE, COMMON SPACE, URBY, OLLIE In United States, THE COLLECTIVE in UK, DOVE VIVO in Italy, etc., belong to the first category. These companies are operating both direct management of their own co-living housing stock (WELIVE, URBY, COMMON SPACE, THE COLLECTIVE), and service management of various real estate properties (ROAM, OLLIE, OUTSIDE, OUTPOST, DOVE VIVO). In both cases the co-living player imposes a sort of brand family-feeling standard to all the locations. Of course as a result, the identity is stronger for the companies who manage their own building compared to the player who manages a relatively few typologies of buildings. Anyway the co-living player always provides interiors and furnishings. It should be noted that company owned and managed buildings are more often built specifically as co-living purposed designed buildings from the greenfield. However, the companies who provide service management impose deep refurbishment and furnishing in order to reproduce a corporative and recognizably branded atmosphere: this is pursued by a standard pattern of provided services and the users’ economic conditions.

STARTUP HOME: a community based co-living model

Special considerations should be reserved for STARTUP HOME and DOVE VIVO cases. In the vision of STARTUP HOME the key factor for a co-living experience to be successful, is to built a strong community identity. Despite all the other coliving companies including a strong generic reference to “the community” in their “mission promise,” STARTUP HOME reverses the relation between housing and community: instead of providing space in order to create community, it promotes the community before creating the housing. Therefore the commercial offer is primarily oriented to create a specifically themed community of start-uppers who are all interested in the same “field”: financial technology, food technology, or even gender, such as women interested in technologies, etc. However it should be said that most of the co-living companies (88.5%) are not start-up focused. Only 11.5% of them are specifically focused on start-up.[20]

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Another specific consideration should be made for DOVE VIVO. It is actually a hybrid case of a â&#x20AC;&#x153;blindâ&#x20AC;? peer-to-peer platform connecting apartment owners and users, but it presents itself as a provider of housing services consistent with the co-living paradigm. In fact rents are paid directly by the users to DOVE VIVO and not to the single apartments owners. Therefore it cannot be considered a pure peer-to-peer platform. The DOVE VIVO case is analyzed in Annex 3 of the present research. According to all the aforementioned considerations, the following matric aims to give a schematic overview of the main 20 co-living players as analyzed and differentiated by macro categories and main features.

DOVE VIVO: an hybrid case of peer-topeer platform / management service model

[20] source: www.getkin.io/coliving-list

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

TOP WORLDWIDE CO-LIVING COMPANIES - Source Worl Wide Web - august 2018 LOGO

NAME

PAYOFF

WEBSITE

COUNTRY

We create a house https://www.you just designed for plus.net.cn young people .

COMMUNITY NETWORKING LOCATIONS PLATFORM

NUMBER OF PLANNED PREMISIES PREMISIES

HOUSING STOCK TYPE

CHINA

Direct managment.

Guangzhou, Beijing.

coliving purposed design new building

CHINA

Direct managment.

Shanghai

coliving purposed design new building

Managment service.

Lisbon, Venice beach, Santa Cruz, San Diego, Bali, Pacific coast, Oahu, Lake Takoe, New York City, San Juan, Austin Texas,

USA

Managment service.

New York

coliving purposed refurbishment appartments

USA

Managment service.

San Francisco, London, Bali, Miami, Tokyo

coliving purposed refurbishment appartments

New York, Washington DC

coliving purposed design reused building

Syracuse, New York City

coliving purposed design reused building

London

YOU+

HAROBUR

Live different

OUTSIDE

Coworking and https://www.outs Coliving in beautiful ite.co places

USA

OUTPOST

Easy move-in. Easy https://www.outp living. Coliving in New ost-club.com York

ROAM

Make this life a www.roam.co wonderful adventure

WELIVE

http://www.harbo urhome.com.cn/h tml/index.html

BUSINESS MODEL

coliving purposed refurbishment appartments

love your life

https://www.weli ve.com

USA

Direct managment.

COMMONSPACE

new way of living

http://www.com monspace.io

USA

Direct managment.

THE COLLECTIVE

A new way to live work https://www.thec and play ollective.com

Direct managment.

COMMON

Coliving is city living https://www.com made better mon.com

USA

Managment service.

URBY

Urby wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t put you in https://urby.com a box

USA

Direct managment.

Jersey City

STARTUP HOME

https://startupho Coliving for entrepreneurs and freelancers me.io

Managment service.

YES

London, Philadelphia

coliving refurbished apartments/ho uses

OLLIE

http://www.ollie. co

USA

Managment service.

New York, Pitsburgh, Los Angeles, Jersey City, Boston.

coliving purposed design new building

COWOLI

meets https://cowoli.co Digital m

USA

sharing platform

private rooms

COLIVING

Comfort Convenience https://coliving.c Community om

USA

sharing platform

YES

private rooms

PUREHOUSE

http://purehouse. We built vibrant org/#welcomecommunities home

USA

sharing platform

YES

private rooms

LIME

Vines vivre the Good http://limelivings Life paces.com

FRANCE

Managment service.

YES

HAPPY PIGEON

https://www.hap Managment GERMANY service. pypigeons.com

YES

PROJECTS

A new concpet of https://www.proj Managment living. Confortable GERMANY service. ects.xyz shared houses

DOVE VIVO

Camere singole, camere doppie e https://www.dov appartamenti in evivo.it/it affitto

SHARE HOUSE NAGOYA

All Inclusive Coliving

Coworking Coliving, Nomads

https://s-hnagoya.com/en/

ITALY

sharing platform + Managment service.

JAPAN

Managment service.

YES

New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, Seattle

coliving purposed design new building refurbished apartments. coliving purposed design new building

coliving refurbished apartments/ho uses

Berlin

coliving refurbished apartments

YES

Berlin

coliving refurbished apartments

Milan, Bologna, Roma, Torino, Como.

rooms in refurbished private appartments

Nagoya

rooms in refurbished private appartment

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

3.3. Selected co-living player-building cases

A restricted group of players has been selected from the above listed group of co-living players as case studies to analyze. The cue for this selection was to individuate players whose offer was consistent with the scope of the present research in terms of the typological and technological features of their housing product. Therefore the criteria adopted for the selection of the player case studies have been the following: 1.

Companies who provide own-branded, housing buildings specifically designed in accordance with their business model and from the typological and technological point of view.

2. Companies who use buildings recently constructed from greenfield or recently totally refurbished to provide their services. (The reason for adopting this criterion is to have more updated technological and typological housing features to analyze). 3. Companies whose buildings are well documented in terms of drawings, data and available information, possibly designed by primary architectural or engineering companies. To better specify and detail, the analysis has been individuated to a single specific building for each player that could best represent the brandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s offer in terms of typological and technological advancement. Afterwards, the specific offer of every couple player-building selected as a case study was analyzed in more detail, considering its business model, management model, services provided, service costs, typology in terms of metrics and layout for building, floor plan and basic unit, technology of the construction techniques used. This selection of case studies should not be considered in any sense exhaustive or representative of the entire co-living phenomenon. It has been composed and sized focusing the specific purposes of the experimental part of the present research. Thus it aims to identify the most well documented examples that best explain the architectonic and technical features of the co-housing service provided.

Selecting criteria and methodology

Selected co-living player-building case studies

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

In accordance with the aforementioned criteria, the selected combinations of player-building are the following: Commonspaces, The Collective, Urby, Welive and Ollie. For every one of them a representative building has been selected for analysis. Co-living player: COMMONSPACES WELIVE THE COLLECTIVE URBY OLLIE

Building: Syracuse, NY. Arlington, Washington DC. Stanford, London. Jersey City, NJ, USA. Carmel Place, New York.

In all the cases, the buildings exist and are in operation, except for the building operated by The Collective in London, which is still in the design phase. Despite The Collective already operating another building at Old Oak Park in London, the Stanford project has been preferred for analysis because of the better quality of the documentation available and also because it is considered to be more representative and useful to the scopes of the research. In every case, the main features of the service offered have been analyzed and summarized, as well as the typological characteristics of the buildings through which the players provide their services. In the Italian case, a wider discussion has been reserved in the experimental section of the research due to the possibility of analyzing it by interacting directly with their managers. Every case is introduced by a short text that aims to summarize main specific features. For every selected case has been filled a check list that aims to synthesize the detail features of every case. The sections of parameters adopted are the following: •

•

Building: this section gives the location and the general information about the physical venue of the case. The main aspect to che has been the level of spuprposed design that has been provided and indemnify the proximity of the location to any urban centre of interest such as university or downtown, including the level of accessibility and connection. Leasing Terms: the purpose of this section is to analyze the main feature of management and user experience of the case in terms of commercial agreements and main services provided in the contract. Individual space and services.This section gives specific information concerning the minimum living pod space in terms of phisical dimension, number of users per type of units available, individual services and terms of use and access.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Common spaces and services. In this part are listed the main common space available in the case, in terms of type, number and location in the building. Community. The last parameters group aims to give details about the level of common activities and community life also in terms of structured tools such as specific app or staff involved.

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

COMMONSPACES, Syracuse, NY http://www.commonspace.io BUILDING Address Location Building type Opening Number of units per floor Type of living units

201EJeffersonSt,Syracuse,NY13202 Downtown Re-used former office building 2016 21 Individual (26 sqm)

LEASING TERMS Min/max leasing time Average fee per person Deposit Basic services Cleaning services Parking Garden/terrace Bike sharing Pets

1 month / 1 year 850.00 USD/month 850.00 USD Included YES every week NO YES, roof top terrace YES FORBIDDEN

INDIVIDUAL SPACE AND SERV. Size of individual living unit Furniture included Private bathroom Kitchenette Storage space Access

26 sqm YES YES (basin, WC, shower) YES YES Personal tag

COMMON SPACES AND SERV. Desk entrance 24/7 Lounge /Chill-out Area Co-working Restaurant/fast food Chef kitchen Dining/working room Laundry machines Rooftop deck Winter garden Commercial / retail COMMUNITY Community bulletin board Events calendar Branded App

YES, GROUND FLOOR YES YES, GROUND FLOOR YES, GROUND FLOOR YES, AT EVERY FLOOR YES, AT EVERY FLOOR YES, IN THE BUILDING YES YES, GROUND FLOOR YES YES NO

Common Space is a start-up that interprets in a classical way the co-living model linked to the localization in a central urban context and the opportunities of proximity with respect to centers of professional interest and study (Syracuse University). The model provides for the presence of a co-working service within the same building. There are also common areas for each floor that tend to pertain to the individual floor users.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 05. Basic unit, plan and interior views

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Fig.$05.$Basic$unit,$plan$and$interior$views$

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! 3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$05.$Basic$unit,$plan$and$interior$views$

Fig. 06. Floor plan layout 1

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Fig.$06.$Floor$plan$layout$1$ Fig. 07. Floor plan layout 2

35" ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Fig.$07.$$Floor$plan$layout$2$

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " " " " " " " " " "

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!

" Fig. 08. Interior views: common kitchen at floor, common chef kitchen, co-working space

Fig.$07.$$Floor$plan$layout$2$ Fig.$07.$$Floor$plan$layout$2$

$ !! !! Fig.$08.$$Interior$views:$common$kitchen$at$floor,$$$common$che !!

!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! "" " " " " " "

" "

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

WELIVE, Crystal City, Arlington, Washington DC https://www.welive.com/dc Designer. Perkins Eastman BUILDING Address

2221 S Clark Street, Arlington, VA 22202, USA City Center Reused former office building 2016 280 Individual (26 sqm)

LOCATION Building type Opening Number of units Type of living units LEASING TERMS Min/max leasing time Average fee per person Deposit Basic services Cleaning services Wifi coverage Parking Garden/terrace Bike sharing Pets Refreshment

1 month / 18 months 1,500.00/920.00 USD/month NO Included YES, housekeeping style YES,( broad band extra) YES, (extra) YES, roof top terrace YES ALLOWED Included-unlimited

INDIVIDUAL SPACE AND SERVICES Size of individual living unit 27 sqm $ included Furniture YES Private bathroom YES (basin, WC, shower) " Kitchenette YES WELIVE,!Crystal!City! ! YES ! ! Storage space Air Conditioning YES, with personal control Arlington,!Washington!DC.! Access Smartphone

" WELIVE,!Crystal!City! ! ! ! Arlington,!Washington!DC.! https://www.welive.com/dc! https://www.welive.com/dc! COMMON SPACES AND SERVICES

! !

Designer."Perkins"Eastman" YES, GROUND FLOOR Desk entrance 24/7 Designer."Perkins"Eastman" ! Area Lounge YES ! Co-working YES, FLOOR WeLive" is" a" spinoff" company" of"GROUND WeWork," the" leading," WeLive" is" a" spinoff" leading," Restourant/fast foodcompany" of" WeWork," YES, GROUNDthe" FLOOR global," coBworking" spaces"YES, company." The" need" to" Chef kictchen AT EVERY FLOOR global," coBworking" spaces" company." The" need" to" provide" a"room living" service" consistent" with"the" coBworking" Dining/working YES, AT EVERY FLOOR provide" a" living" service" consistent" with"the" coBworking" Laundry machines IN THE BUILDING experience" proposed" has" YES, emerged" along" with" the" Rooftop deck YES along" with" the" experience" proposed" has" emerged" strong"expansion"of"coBworking.""Continuity"and"fluidity" Winter garden strong"expansion"of"coBworking.""Continuity"and"fluidity" between" workBtime" and"NOspareBtime" is" reducing" Commercial / retail between" workBtime" spareBtime" reducing" commuting" time" and" requires" a" more"is"central" location" for" users." WeLive" has" a"a"ditigal" platform"location" that" takes" commuting" time" and" requires" more" central" advantage" the"a"WeBWork" community" of"takes" 100,000" for" users." WeLive"of"has" ditigal" platform" that" people." The" networking" connection" with" WeWork" advantage" of" the" WeBWork" community" of" 100,000"is" a" for" connection" WeLive" in" competition" with" is" other’s" people."big" The"advantage" networking" with" WeWork" a" coBliving"players." big" advantage" for" WeLive" in" competition" with" other’s" ! coBliving"players."

! !!

WELIVE! "

BUILDING! Address" Location" BUILDING! Building"type" Address" Opening" Location" Number"of"units" Building"type"Type"of"living"units" " Opening"

WELIVE! "

LEASING!TERMS! Number"of"units" Min/max"leasing"time" Type"of"living"units" Average"fee"per"person" " Deposit"

LEASING!TERMS! Basic"services"" Min/max"leasing"time" Cleaning"services" Average"fee"per"person" Wifi"coverage" Deposit" Parking" Basic"services"" Garden/terrace" Cleaning"services" Bike"sharing" Wifi"coverage"Pets"

Crystal!City,!Washinton!DC! " "" 2221"S"Clark"Street,"Arlington,"VA"22202,"USA" " City"Center" "" Reused"former"office"building"" 2221"S"Clark"Street,"Arlington,"VA"22202,"USA" 2016" City"Center"280" Individual"(26"sqm)" Reused"former"office"building"" " 2016"

Crystal!City,!Washinton!DC!

"" 280" 1"month"/"18"months" Individual"(26"sqm)" 1,500.00/920.00"USD/month" " NO"

"" Included" 1"month"/"18"months" YES,"housekeeping"style" 1,500.00/920.00"USD/month" YES,("broad"band"extra)" NO" YES,"(extra)" Included" YES,"roof"top"terrace" YES,"housekeeping"style" YES" ALLOWED" YES,("broad"band"extra)"

WeLive is a spinoff company of WeWork, the leading, global, co-working spaces company. The need to provide a living service consistent with the co-working experience proposed has emerged along with the strong expansion of co-working. Continuity and fluidity between work-time and spare-time is reducing commuting time and requires a more central location for users. WeLive has a ditigal platform that takes advantage of the WeWork community of 100,000 people. The networking connection with WeWork is a big advantage for WeLive in competition with other’s co-living players.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " " " Fig.$09.$Basic$unit$ " " " " "

Fig. 09. Basic unit

37"

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

Fig. 10. Building layout

Fig. 11. Floor plan layout

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$11.$Floor$plan$layout$ ! ! ! ! !

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$11.$Floor$plan$layout$ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$12.$$Basic$unit$technological$equipment$ "

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 12. Basic unit technological equipment

39"

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

URBY, Jersey City, NJ, USA https://jerseycityurby.com Designer: Concrete Architecture BUILDING Address Location Building type Opening Number of units Type of living units

200 Geene St. Jersey City, NJ 07302 City Center New Building 2017 650 indiv.(30 sqm), 1bd (65),2 bdr(95)

LEASING TERMS Min/max leasing time Average fee per person Deposit Basic services cCeaning services Wifi coverage Parking Garden/terrace Bike sharing Pets Refreshment

1 year / 2,600.00 USD/month Included NO YES YES, (extra) YES, roof top terrace YES ALLOWED NO

Urby business model could be considered to lie between co-living and traditional Real Estate. A traditional typology includes individual microcosms (30%), one bedroom (50%) and two-bedrooms (20%) apartments. A large supply of common spaces gives to the real estate offer a strong co-living aspect. The communication approach focuses on the larger space available for individuals (URBY WON’T PUT YOU IN A BOX) as well as on the Community feeling of the housing experience and amenities proposed.

INDIVIDUAL SPACE AND SERV. Size of individual living unit 30 sqm Furniture included YES Private bathroom (basin, WC, shower) URBY! ! ! ! YES ! Kitchenette YES Storage space YES Jersey!City,!NJ,!USA! URBY! ! ! ! YES, with! digital control Air Conditioning https://jerseycityurby.com! Access Jersey!City,!NJ,!USA! Smartphone 24/7 digital package System YES Designer:"Concrete"Architecture." https://jerseycityurby.com! Washing machine YES

"Designer:"Concrete"Architecture."

Urby" SPACES business" could" be" considered" to" lie"" COMMON AND model" SERV. " entrance 24/7 Desk YES, GROUNDReal" FLOOREstate." A" between" coBliving" and" traditional" Urby" model" could" be" considered" to" lie"" Lounge Areabusiness" YES individual" traditional" typology" includes" microcosms" between" traditional" Real" Estate." A" Co-working NO (30%)," one"coBliving" bedroom"and" (50%)" and" twoBbedrooms" (20%)" Restaurant/fast YES,individual" IN THE BUILDING traditional"food typology" includes" microcosms" apartments."A"large"supply"of"common"spaces"gives"to" Chef kictchen YES, INtwoBbedrooms" THE BUILDING (30%)," one" bedroom" (50%)" and" the" real" estate" offer" a" strong" coBliving" aspect." "(20%)" " The" Dining/working room approach" focuses" NO apartments."A"large"supply"of"common"spaces"gives"to" communication" on" the" larger" space" Laundry machines NO the" real" estate" offer" a" strong" coBliving" aspect." The" available" for" individuals" (URBY" WON’T" PUT" YOU"" "IN" A" Rooftop deck YES communication" approach" focuses" on" the" larger"of" space" BOX)" as" well" as" on" the" Community" feeling" the" Winter garden YES available" for" individuals" (URBY" WON’T" PUT" YOU" IN" A" housing"experience"and"amenities"proposed." Commercial / retail NO BOX)" as" well" as" on" the" Community" feeling" of"swimthe" Others Yoga Room, Gym, Hot salted "housing"experience"and"amenities"proposed." ming pool, BBQ grill, BUILDING! "" COMMUNITY "Address" 200"Geene"St."Jersey"City,"NJ"07302" Community bulletin board YES BUILDING! "" Location" City"Center" Events calendar and communcation YES 200"Geene"St."Jersey"City,"NJ"07302" Address" Building"type" New"Building" Advanced mobile app YES Location" City"Center" Opening" 2017" Networking community YES Building"type" New"Building" 650" 24/7Number"of"units" assistance service YES Opening" 2017" Type"of"living"units" indiv.(30"sqm),"1bd"(65),2"bdr(95)" Cultural happening YES "Number"of"units" Type"of"living"units" LEASING!TERMS!

" Min/max"leasing"time" LEASING!TERMS! Average"fee"per"person" Min/max"leasing"time" Deposit" Average"fee"per"person" Basic"services"" Deposit" cCeaning"services" Basic"services"" Wifi"coverage" cCeaning"services" Parking" Wifi"coverage" Garden/terrace" Parking" Bike"sharing" Garden/terrace" Pets" Bike"sharing" Refreshment" "Pets" Refreshment" INDIVIDUAL!SPACE!AND!SERV.! " Size"of"individual"living"unit" INDIVIDUAL!SPACE!AND!SERV.! Furniture"included" Size"of"individual"living"unit" Private"bathroom"

650" " indiv.(30"sqm),"1bd"(65),2"bdr(95)" "" " 1"year"/"B" "" 2,600.00"USD/month" 1"year"/"B" B" 2,600.00"USD/month" Included" B" NO" Included" YES" NO" YES,"(extra)" YES" YES,"roof"top"terrace" YES,"(extra)" YES" YES,"roof"top"terrace" ALLOWED! YES" NO" ALLOWED! " NO" "" " 30"sqm" "" YES"

Furniture"included" Kitchenette"

30"sqm" YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES"

Private"bathroom" Storage"space" Kitchenette" Air"Conditioning"

YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES" YES" YES,"with"digital"control"

$interior$views$ $interior$views$

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 13. Basic unit, plan and interior views

" " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " Fig.$13.$Basic$unit,$plan$and$interior$views$ " " " "

! ! " " Fig.$13.$Basic$unit,$plan$and$interior$views$ Fig.$13.$Basic$unit,$plan$and$interior$views$ "3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON 52 " " " " " Fig. 14. Floors plan layout " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig. 15. Ground floor layout Fig.$14.$Floors$plan$layout$ Fig.$14.$Floors$plan$layout$ " " 41"

" " " Fig.$15.$Ground$floor$layout$ " "

Fig. 16. 9th floor and terrace layout

" " Fig.$15.$Ground$floor$layout$ "

" " Fig."16."9th"floor"and"terrace"layout"" " " " " Fig."16."9th"floor"and"terrace"layout"" "

" "

" " HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE " 53 " " " " Fig. 17. Elevation, exterior and " interior views " " " " " " "" " "" " "" " "" " " "" " "" " "" " "" " "" " " "" " "" " " "" !! " " !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! " "" ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! Fig."17."Elevation,"exterior"and"interior"views.! !! !! " !! or"views.! or"views.! !! or"views.! Fig."17."Elevation,"exterior"and"interior"views.! Fig."17."Elevation,"exterior"and"interior"views.! 43" 43" 43" ""

43" 43

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

OLLIE, Kips Bay, Carmel Place, Manhattan, New York, USA http://www.ollie.co Designer: nArchitects, New York BUILDING Address Location Building type Opening Number of units Type of living units

335 East 27th Street, New York, USA Dowtown New Modular Building 2016 60 Indiv.(27 sqm)

LEASING TERMS Min/max leasing time Average fee per person Deposit Basic services cleaning services Wifi coverage Parking Garden/terrace Bike sharing Pets Refreshment Entertainment

1 year / 2,700.00 USD/month Included YES, Every 2 weeks YES, premium wi-fi NO YES, roof top terrace NO ALLOWED NO YES, premium TV program

INDIVIDUAL SPACE AND SERVICES Size of basic unit 27 sqm Furniture included YES Private bathroom YES (basin, WC, shower) kKtchenette YES space YES ! Storage Air conditioning YES, with digital control Access ! Smartphone OLLIE! ! ! 24/7 digital package System YES Kips!Bay,!Carmel!Place,!Manhattan,! Washing machine NO

! ! y,!Carmel!Place,!Manhattan,! rk,!USA! New!York,!USA! COMMON SPACES AND SERVICES www.ollie.co!

http://www.ollie.co! nArchitects,"New"York." Lounge Area Desk entrance 24/7

YES YES Designer:"nArchitects,"New"York." Co-working NO ! Restaurant/fast food NO building"probably"represents"the"most"advanced"coB This"Ollie"building"probably"represents"the"most"advanced"coB Chef kictchen NO er" both"living" for" the" both" services" provided" and" for" and" the"for" the" Dining/working roomfor" the" YES offer" services" provided" Laundry machines YES ral"technologies"adopted."The"service"is"designed"as" architectural"technologies"adopted."The"service"is"designed"as" Rooftop deckthat" YES the" user/member" a" membership" subscription" that"user/member" allows" to" rship" subscription" allows" the" to" Winterall" garden NO including" premium" TV" access" the" services" Ollie" coBliving" services" the" Ollie" coBliving" including" premium" TV" Commercial / retail YES programs"and"WiBFi."The"membership"is"also"extended"to"the" and"WiBFi."The"membership"is"also"extended"to"the" Others services" in" Ollie" premises" Gym,in" yoga common" other" cities." Also"

services"connections" in" Ollie" premises" in" other"are"cities." Also"through" with" neighborhood" activated" COMMUNITY discount" and" agreements" commercial" activities" and" ns" with" neighborhood" are" with" activated" through" Community shops" in" the"manager surrounding" buildings."YES Community"and" life" is" based" and" agreements" with" commercial" activities" Events calendar and communication YES on"a"specific"Ollie"Social"App"and"is"managed"by"a"community" he" surrounding" buildings." Community" life" is" based" Advanced mobile YES processes" are" fully" manager." Design"appand" construction" fic"Ollie"Social"App"and"is"managed"by"a"community" Networking YES, community membership adopted" in" a"community hybrid" modular" technology:" the" basement" and" 24/7 assistance service Design"the" and" construction" processes" fully" ground" floor" have" been" built"- using"are" onBsite" traditional" Cultural happening YES construction" technologies." The" 9" storys" have" been" n" a" hybrid" modular" technology:" the" basement" and"realized" Neighborhood networking YES using"offBsite"modular"technology." d" floor" have" been" built" using" onBsite" traditional" BUILDING! "" on" technologies." The" 9" storys" have" been" realized" 335"East"27th"Street,"New"York,"USA" Address" ite"modular"technology." Location" Dowtown"

ts" units"

Building"type" New"Modular"Building" "" Opening" 2016" 335"East"27th"Street,"New"York,"USA" Number"of"units" 60" Dowtown" Type"of"living"units" Indiv.(27"sqm)" New"Modular"Building" " " 2016" LEASING!TERMS! "" Min/max"leasing"time" 1"year"/"B" 60" Average"fee"per"person" 2,700.00"USD/month" Indiv.(27"sqm)" B" Deposit" Basic"services""

MS! cleaning"services" Wifi"coverage" ng"time" er"person" Parking"

" es"

Garden/terrace" Bike"sharing" Pets" Refreshment"

" Included" "" YES,"Every"2"weeks" 1"year"/"B" YES,"premium"wiBfi" 2,700.00"USD/month" NO" YES,"roof"top"terrace" B" NO"

Included" ALLOWED" YES,"Every"2"weeks" NO"

This Ollie building probably represents the most advanced co-living offer both for the services provided and for the architectural technologies adopted.The service is designed as a membership subscription that allows the user/member to access all the Ollie co-living services including premium TV programs and Wi-Fi. The membership is also extended to the common services in Ollie premises in other cities. Also connections with neighborhood are activated through discount and agreements with commercial activities and shops in the surrounding buildings. Community life is based on a specific Ollie Social App and is managed by a community manager. Design and construction processes are fully adopted in a hybrid modular technology: the basement and the ground floor have been built using onsite traditional construction technologies. The 9 storys have been realized using off-site modular technology.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 18. Basic unit, plan and interior view

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$18.$Basic$unit,$plan$and$interior$view$ ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! 3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON 56 ! Fig.$18.$Basic$unit,$plan$and$interior$view$ ! Fig. 19. Modular components of ! basic unit ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$19.$Modular$components$of$basic$unit$

20. Transformability of the " Fig. housing basic module " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig.$20.$Transformability$of$the$housing$basic$module.$ "

45"

" " " " Fig.$20.$Transformability$of$the$housing$basic$module.$ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig.$21.$Different$configurations$of$the$housing$module.$

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

57 Fig. 21. Different configurations of the housing module

46"

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig.$22.$Assembling$scheme$ " "

Fig. 22. Assembling scheme

58 Fig. 23. Building section

Fig. 24. Building lay out

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

! Fig.$24.$Building$lay$out$ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " Fig.$25.$Rooftop$terrace$$

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

59 Fig. 25. Rooftop terrace

Fig. 26. Gym, fitness room at ground floor

Fig.$26.$Gym,$fitness

$ !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Fig. 27. Modular unit types

Fig.$26.$Gym,$fitness$room$at$ground$floor$

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$27.$Modular$unit$types$ ! !

48"

! ! !! ! !!

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

! ! !! !! ! !! !! Fig.$27.$Modular$unit$types$ ! ! ! ! Fig.$27.$Modular$unit$types$ ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! Fig.$27.$Modular$unit$types$ ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !Fig.$28.$OffNsite$construction$phases! ! ! ! Fig.$28.$OffNsite$construction$phases! !" "

Fig. 28. Off-site construction phases

49"

! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! Fig.$29.$Assembling$process! Fig.$29.$Assembling$process! ! !! ! !Fig.$29.$Assembling$process! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! Fig.$30.$Completed$building.! Fig.$30.$Completed$building.! ! " "! ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$30.$Completed$building.! "

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 29. Assembling process

Fig. 30. Completed building

50" 50"

50"

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

THE COLLECTIVE, London, UK http://www.thecollective.com Designer: PLP Architecture BUILDING Address Location Building type Opening Number of units Type of living units

Old Oak Lane, London, NW10 6FF Suburb, well connected New Building 2016 570 Indiv.(15 sqm)

LEASING TERMS Min/max leasing time Average fee per person Deposit Basic services Cleaning services Wifi coverage Parking Garden/terrace Bike sharing Pets Refreshment Entertainment

4 months /1 year 1,300.00 £/week 500.00 £/week Included YES, Every 2 weeks YES, premium wi-fi YES, only Bikes YES, roof top terrace NO FORBIDDEN NO -

INDIVIDUAL SPACE AND SERVICES Size of basic unit Forniture included private ! bathroom kitchenette ! ! space Storage AirTHE!COLLECTIVE! Conditioning ! ! Access ………….! 24/7 digital package System THE!COLLECTIVE! ! washing machine

15 sqm YES YES (basin, WC, shower) YES YES YES ! Personal card ! NO

London,!UK! ………….! COMMON SPACES AND SERVICES https://www.thecollective.com! London,!UK! Desk entrance 24/7 YES Designer:"PLP"Architecture" Lounge, Chill-out Area YES https://www.thecollective.com! "

Co-working YES Designer:"PLP"Architecture" Among" the" analyzed" subjects" The" Restaurant/fast food YESCollective" is" probably" the" " chef kitchen Shared YES one"that"interprets"the""house"as"a"service""in"a"way"closer"to" Among" the"rooms analyzed" subjects" The" Dining/working YES Collective" is" probably" the" a"sort"of"university"dorm"for"young"professionals."A"large"and" one"that"interprets"the""house"as"a"service""in"a"way"closer"to" Laundry machines YES varied"number"of"common"spaces"and"functions"are"available" Rooftop deck YES a"sort"of"university"dorm"for"young"professionals."A"large"and" for"users"to"reproduce"a"certain"level"of"urban"life"inside"the" Winter garden YES varied"number"of"common"spaces"and"functions"are"available" Commercial YES, minimarket grocery of" the" complex."/ retail This" compensates" the" suburban" context" for"users"to"reproduce"a"certain"level"of"urban"life"inside"the" Others Gym, library, cinema, sport bar, location,"which"doesn’t"seem"to"be"particularly"lively." complex." This" compensates" the" context" of" the" Spa,suburban" yoga " location,"which"doesn’t"seem"to"be"particularly"lively." COMMUNITY BUILDING! manager " Community " calendar and commuication YES Address" Old"Oak"Lane,"London,"NW10"6FF"" Events YES BUILDING! " Location" Advanced mobile app YES Suburb,"well"connected" Address" Community Building"type" New"Building" Networking YESOld"Oak"Lane,"London,"NW10"6FF"" Location" Suburb,"well"connected" Opening" 2016" 24/7 assistance service YES Building"type" New"Building" Number"of"units" 570" Cultural happening YES Opening" 2016" Type"of"living"units" Indiv.(15"sqm)" Neighborhood networking NO " Number"of"units" Type"of"living"units" LEASING!TERMS! " Min/max"leasing"time" LEASING!TERMS! Average"fee"per"person" Min/max"leasing"time" Deposit" Average"fee"per"person" Basic"services"" Deposit" Cleaning"services" Basic"services"" Wifi"coverage" Cleaning"services" Parking" Wifi"coverage" Garden/terrace" Parking" Bike"sharing" Garden/terrace" Pets" Bike"sharing" Refreshment" Pets" Entertainment" " Refreshment" Entertainment" INDIVIDUAL!SPACE!AND!SERVICES! " Size"of"basic"unit" INDIVIDUAL!SPACE!AND!SERVICES! Forniture"included" Size"of"basic"unit" private"bathroom" Forniture"included" kitchenette" private"bathroom" Storage"space"

"570" Indiv.(15"sqm)" "" " 4"months"/1"year" "" 1,300.00"£/week" 4"months"/1"year" 500.00"£/week" 1,300.00"£/week" Included" 500.00"£/week" YES,"Every"2"weeks"

Included" YES,"premium"wiBfi" YES,"Every"2"weeks" YES,"only"Bikes" YES,"premium"wiBfi" YES,"roof"top"terrace" YES,"only"Bikes" NO" YES,"roof"top"terrace" FORBIDDEN" NO" NO" FORBIDDEN" B" "NO" "" B" 15"sqm" " YES""" 15"sqm" YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES" YES" YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES"

Among the analyzed subjects The Collective is probably the one that interprets the “house as a service” in a way closer to a sort of university dorm for young professionals. A large and varied number of common spaces and functions are available for users to reproduce a certain level of urban life inside the complex. This compensates the suburban context of the location, which doesn’t seem to be particularly lively.

63 HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

51"

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig."31."Basic"Units:"“studio”"(1"person)""and"twodio"(2"persons)" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig."31."Basic"Units:"“studio”"(1"person)""and"twodio"(2"person " " " " " " " " " "

Fig. 31. Basic Units: “studio” (1 person) and twodio (2 persons)

" " " " " " " " " " " 3. " " INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON 64 " " " " " " " " Fig 32. Basic unit interior " " " schemes and views " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig"32."Basic"unit"interior"schemes"and"views" Fig"32."Basic"unit"interior"schemes"and"views" Fig."31."Basic"Units:"“studio”"(1"person)""and"twodio"(2"persons)" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig. 33 Building layout and " floor scheme " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Fig"32."Basic"unit"interior"schemes"and"views" "

" " " " " " " " Fig.$33$Building$layout$and$floor$scheme$ Fig.$33$Building$layout$and$floor$scheme$ " " " " " " " " " " "

52" 52"

52"

$ $

" Fig.$33$Building$layout$and$floor$scheme$ HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE 65 " "" " " Fig. 34 View from the street " " " "" " "" " " " "" " "" " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" $ $ $ $ " "" " " " " " " "" Fig.$33$Building$layout$and$floor$scheme$ $$ $$ "Fig.$33$Building$layout$and$floor$scheme$ " " Fig. 35 Chill-out lounge space " Fig.$34$View$from$the$street$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$35$ChillNout$lou " " "" " " " "" " "" " " " " " " "" " "" " " " "" " "" " " "Fig.$34$View$from$the$street$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$35$ChillNout$lounge$space$ Fig.$34$View$from$the$street$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$35$ChillNout$lounge$space$ $$ $$ Fig. 36 View from the street Fig. 37 Chef kitchen " "" " "" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$35$ChillNout$lounge$space$ $ $ $ $ " " " "" " " Fig.$36$View$from$the$street$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$37$Chef$kitchen " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " Fig.$36$View$from$the$street$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$37$Chef$kitchen$ Fig.$36$View$from$the$street$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$37$Chef$kitchen$ " " " "

$$ 53" 53"

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" " " Fig.$38$View$of$the$library$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$39$ "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" " " " "" " "" Fig.$38$View$of$the$library$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$39$Washing$machine$lounge$ Fig.$38$View$of$the$library$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$39$Washing$machine$lounge$ $ $ $ " "" "" " $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$39$Washing$machine$lounge$ $ $ "" " "" "" " "" Fig.$40$Old$Oak$restaurant$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$41 "" "" " " " " " " " " " Fig.$40$Old$Oak$restaurant$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$41$Secret$garden$ $ $ $ " " Fig.$40$Old$Oak$restaurant$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Fig.$41$Secret$garden$ "" " " " Fig. 38 View of the library

Fig. 39 Washing machine lounge

Fig. 40 Old Oak restaurant

Fig. 41 Secret garden

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

! ! ! BRAND! ! ! ! BUILDING! !! Address! Location! Building!type! Opening! Number!of!units! Type!of!living!units! !

LEASING!TERMS! Min/max!leasing!time! Average!fee!per!person! ! Deposit! Basic!services!! Cleaning!services! Wifi!coverage! Parking! Garden/terrace! Bike!sharing! Pets! Refreshment! Entertainment! !

INDIVIDUAL!SPACE!! Size!of!basic!unit! Furniture!included! Private!bathroom! Kitchenette! Storage!space! Air!Conditioning! Access! 24/7!digital!package!System! Washing!machine! !

COMMON!SPACES!! Desk!entrance!24/7! Lounge!Area! CoTworking! Restaurant/fast!food! Chef!kitchen! Dining/working!room! Laundry!machines! Rooftop!deck! Winter!garden! Commercial!/!retail! Others! !

COMMUNITY! Community!bulletin!board! Events!calendar!and! commuication! Advanced!mobile!app! Networking!community! 24/7!assistance!service! Cultural!happening! Neighborhood!networking!

COMMONSPACES!

WELIVE!

URBY!

OLLIE!

THE!COLLECTVIE!

Syracuse,!NY! ""

Crystal!City,!Washinton!DC! ""

Kips!Bay,!Carmel!Place! ""

Old!Oak!Park! ""

201"E"Jefferson"St,"Syracuse,"NY" 13202"

2221"S"Clark"Street," Arlington,"VA"22202,"USA"

Downtown" Reused"former"office"building"" 2016" 21"

City"center" Reused"former"office" building"" 2016" 280"

Individual"(26"sqm)" "

200"Geene"St."Jersey"City,"NJ" 335"East"27th"Street,"New"York," 07302" USA"

Old"Oak"Lane,"London,"NW10" 6FF"

City"center"

Downtown"

Suburb,"well"connected"

New"hybrid"modular"building" 2016" 60"

New"building" 2016" 570"

Individual"(26"sqm)" "

New"Building" 2017" 650" Indiv.(30"sqm),"1bd"(65),2" bdr(95)" "

Indiv.(27"sqm)" "

Indiv.(15"sqm)" "

"" 1"month"/"1"year" 850.00"USD/month" " 850.00"USD" Included" YES,"every"week" YES" NO" YES,"roof"top"terrace" YES" FORBIDDEN" NO" NO" "

"" 1"month"/"18"months" 1,500.00/920.00"USD/month" " NO" Included" YES,"housekeeping"style" YES,("broad"band"extra)" YES,"(extra)" YES,"roof"top"terrace" YES" ALLOWED" IncludedBunlimited" NO" "

"" 1"year"/"B" 2,600.00"USD/month" " B" Included" NO" YES" YES,"(extra)" YES,"roof"top"terrace" YES" ALLOWED" NO" NO" "

"" 1"year"/"B" 2,700.00"USD/month" " B" Included" YES,"every"2"weeks" YES,"premium"wiBfi" NO" YES,"roof"top"terrace" NO" ALLOWED" NO" YES,"premium"TV"program" "

"" 4"months"/1"year" 1,600,00"USD"/week"" (1,300.00"£)" 500.00"£/week" Included" YES,"every"2"weeks" YES,"premium"wiBfi" YES,"only"bikes" YES,"roof"top"terrace" NO" FORBIDDEN" NO" NO" "

"" 26"sqm" YES" YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES" YES" YES" Personal"tag" NO" NO" "

"" 27"sqm" YES" YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES" YES" YES,"with"personal"control" Smartphone" NO" NO" "

"" 30"sqm" YES" YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES" YES" YES,"with"digital"control" Smartphone" YES" YES" "

"" 27"sqm" YES" YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES" YES" YES,"with"digital"control" Smartphone" YES" NO" "

"" 15"sqm" YES" YES"(basin,"WC,"shower)" YES" YES" YES" Personal"card" NO" NO" "

"" YES,"GROUND"FLOOR" NO" YES,"GROUND"FLOOR" YES,"GROUND"FLOOR" YES,"IN"THE"BUILDING" YES,"AT"EVERY"FLOOR" YES,"IN"THE"BUILDING" YES" "" YES,"GROUND"FLOOR"

"" YES,"GROUND"FLOOR" YES" YES,"GROUND"FLOOR" YES,"GROUND"FLOOR" YES,"AT"EVERY"FLOOR" YES,"AT"EVERY"FLOOR" YES,"IN"THE"BUILDING" YES" "" NO"

"" YES,"GROUND"FLOOR" YES" NO" YES,"IN"THE"BUILDING" YES,"IN"THE"BUILDING" NO" NO" YES" YES" NO"

"" YES" YES" NO" NO" NO" YES" YES" YES" NO" YES"

"" YES" YES" YES" YES" YES" YES" YES" YES" YES" YES,"minimarket"grocery"

Yoga"room"

Yoga"room,""gym,"hot"salted" swimming"pool,"BBQ"grill,""

"Gym,"yoga"

"Gym,"library,"cinema,"sport" bar,"Spa,"yoga"

"" YES"

YES" NO" NO" NO" NO" NO"

YES" YES" YES" YES" NO" NO"

YES" YES" YES" YES" YES" YES"

YES" YES" YES,"community"membership" YES" YES" YES"

YES" YES" YES" YES" YES" NO"

Fig$XX.$Comparative$coNliving$services’$dashboard$

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

3.4 Analysis: Co-living features indicator trends

Typology: cluster of individual microcosms and shared spaces

Graduality of shared spaces: from proximity hot spot to the city

After the analysis of the case studies, a certain number of specific features have been identified and are summarized below: A typological characteristic common to all the cases analyzed is undoubtedly that of completely abandoning the classic categories of typology that define the size of housing according to the number of bedrooms (Anglo-Saxon) or rooms (one-room, two-room, three-room, etc.). In almost all cases, the floor distributions is composed of the aggregation of individual living microcosms that are variously combined with shared and collective spaces. Individual Microcosms have different dimensional and typological characteristics. However, all of them are potentially fully independent. In fact they are equipped with everything the individual user needs to live without using the common spaces and services, thus replicating the entire scope of housing functions inside the individual space. For this reason they can be defined as “individual microcosms” or more correctly “housing pods” or “living pods,” because they can be considered as integrated stations providing residential services. The potential independency of living pods says something about the features of common spaces. As the individual has everything he or she needs to live inside the pod, the use of common spaces is a choice based on the will to socially share the housing experience, instead of merely being a necessity urged by practical needs. Therefore these spaces are considered to be optional and extra services for the user. In fact there is a graduality in the level of sharing of these spaces that seems largely dependent on their proximity to the microcosms, or on their public accessibility from the city space. In some situations, i.e. the Commonspace building in Syracuse, the common areas of the floors (kitchen) seem to have proximity pertinence connected to the microcosms of every single floor. In the case of the Old Oak The Collective, it seems that the common spaces are to be understood as “public spaces”, almost “premises” open to all users of the building and possibly also to external users. This bivalence thus represents a double nature that is not yet clearly identified in these spaces: the shared spaces of proximity that we can call cluster’s hot spots, and the spaces open to the city that we can call public spaces.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

69 Fig. 42. Basic Units comparative panel

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

Fig. 4. Basic units comparative panel

that"can"be"defined"as"“living"devices”–"specialized"technological"gr " the"functionality"and"the"habitability"of"the"microcosms." " 71 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! ! " ! ! " ! Fig.$11.$Floor$plan$layout$ " ! ! " ! ! " ! HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 44 Ollie and WeLive basic units, technological concept: the living functons are concentrated in standardized technological groups considered as plug in devices in order to optimize production processes and reduce costs.

Fig." 44" Ollie" and" WeLive" basic" units," technological" concept:" the" livin concentrated" in" standardized" technological" groups" considered" as" plug order"to"optimize"production"processes"and"reduce"costs."

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fig.$12.$$Basic$unit$technological$equipment$ The consideration that can be made on the structuring of the individual microcosm in the technological interpretation that is given in the various cases analyzed, " is of particular interest. Every “domestic” function becomes a technological device. The functional microcosm axonometric of the Welive Arlington building is significant: each piece of technological equipment is named with its housing function (sleeping, entertainment, bathroom, kitchen, etc.). Kitchen, bedroom, study, bathroom – all these functions that were previously identified as different rooms, inside the living microcosm become components that can be defined as “living devices”– specialized technological groups that give the functionality and the habitability of the microcosms.

" " As"regards"management,"there"are"many"differences"between"the An"element"common"to"all"is"the"incorporation"of"the"living"costs" one"basic"monthly"fee."Almost"all"players"expect"an"integrated"cle One"of"the"reasons"is"the"desire"to"guarantee"a"certain"basic"maint building" stock." Some" managers" propose" cleaning" twice" a" week." there" is" also" a" housekeeping" service" with" the" change" of" sheets. these" services" are" included" in" the" basic" fee."Technology The" tendency" is" 39" miniaturization cleaning"services"in"buildings"with"a"high"number"of"housing"units of the microcosm cases"there"is"an"automatic"laundry"service"for"the"building"or"for"th housing functions This"criterion"also"applies"to"ancillary"services"and"extra"fees."Tha greater"the"community"size,"the"greater"the"extra"services"and"the available" to" users." In" many" cases" the" services" are" outsourced" and the"external"public."As"for"the"gym"and"wellness"services,"it"is"us that"users"will"have"easy"access"with"a"discounted"rate.$

3. INNOVATION SCENARIOS IN BUILDING MANAGMENT: THE CO-LIVING PHENOMENON

Management model -monthly fee– all inclusive account.

As regards management, there are many differences between the various cases. An element common to all is the incorporation of the living costs of the users in one basic monthly fee. Almost all players expect an integrated cleaning service. One of the reasons is the desire to guarantee a certain basic maintenance of the building stock. Some managers propose cleaning twice a week. In some cases there is also a housekeeping service with the change of sheets. In general all these services are included in the basic fee. The tendency is to have more cleaning services in buildings with a high number of housing units. In almost all cases there is an automatic laundry service for the building or for the single floor. This criterion also applies to ancillary services and extra fees. That is to say, the greater the community size, the greater the extra services and the spaces made available to users. In many cases the services are outsourced and also open to the external public. As for the gym and wellness services, it is usually expected that users will have easy access with a discounted rate.

Other Featured Services

Some interesting services are worth noting, such as the availability of some (very few) rooms for “guests” that can be rented to single nights for visits by relatives and friends (The Collective, Old Oak). Various solutions are registered for mobility. Generally there are no private parking spaces. In some cases, the use of a bicycle is also included in the basic fee. The Collective does not provide parking, but provides a car sharing service to be booked. No special services are promoted for food. Only WeLive offers an unlimited refreshment service (tea water and coffee) for its members.

Digital platform

As for the community, WeLive is the only player among those analyzed that has a complete and integrated platform allowing the community to communicate and exchange information as well as manage their account. WeLive and URBY use their smartphones to manage access to both the building and the microcosms. The Collective uses a hotel-style board.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION 4.1 New and old ways of innovation. A possible interpretation

Technological and typological innovation heritage in architecture

When introducing the theoretical propositional part of the research, it is necessary to make two brief considerations: the first, to summarize the acquisitions of the analysis carried out so far, and the second to clarify the original contribution of the research in relation to the enormous corpus of technological innovation developed in the past.

Why innovations failed in evolving the construction industry

To specify the originality of the contribution of the research, it is first necessary to clarify that it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t consist in proposing a particular constructive system with which to give an interpretation of the analyzed social and housing phenomenon. In the history of architectural technology over the past one hundred years, new process and product innovations have already been explored in almost every direction. All of them had the same objectives in being compared to the building object: experimentations oriented to typological flexibility, to industrial production, to cost reduction, and to product research in the field of building components and technological systems. All these intellectual and scientific efforts constitute a huge asset available to anyone who intends to deal with these issues. This corpus is made up of experiences positioned in an extensive and transversal way between scientific speculation, experimentation with techno-typological applications, and concrete initiatives of prototyping and industrial production (Appendix 1).

As we have seen in previous chapters the effects and consequences of the great recession (global financial crisis 2007-2009) together with the spread of Internet 2.0, have led to profound changes in the habits, desires and behavior of people in the second decade of the 21st century. This has produced a structural change in macro-economic dynamics and social organization, particularly in globalized urban communities. The new cultural paradigms are profoundly modifying the perception of housing, and the same housing behavior in large cities. New players are just emerging on the market trying to match the new housing models. They propose housing services that conceive the house as a service throughout the entire life cycle (lifecycle profit). In addition to the management approach, also from the technological and typological point of view, this new offer presents recurring features that we have identified in the analysis of the case studies presented here. The research imagines in its experimental phase how the building organism can conceptually be reinterpreted to adapt to these new housing models. For this purpose, we advance a new theoretical framework for typological and technological innovation aimed at the design of newly designed residential buildings capable of responding to new needs and new housing behavior.

Nevertheless the profusion of intellectual and design energies in this field has not significantly affected the actual production and industrialization practices of the construction sector. Without substantial differences they still adopt today the same typological, technological, productive and process solutions developed and

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

introduced in the experiments of the first decades of the twentieth century. From this point of view it is believed that the main cause of the substantial failure of application in this huge research heritage, seems to be the lack of a systematic and strategic approach, which could fill the gap between the proposed innovations connecting technology with the real needs expressed by society in terms of the social network, structuring that in terms of economic and housing behavior.[21] Therefore the original contribution this research offers does not concern specific technological solutions for products or processes, but consists in identifying the characteristics of the new housing needs in urban areas in the changed conditions of the current socio-economic context. It proposes a corresponding theoretical approach to typological and technological innovation that allows a reconception of the residential building in order to meet these new housing needs, as well as to hypothesize the main application cases.

Criticisms of modularization and industrialization in construction industry

The aftermaths of these results imply that in a subsequent experimental phase, also part of that heritage of technological and typological experimentation that has so far remained unapplied, could be rehabilitated and used. In the last two decades increased labor costs (in Western economies), a lack of skilled workers, and increased environmental regulations and certifications in construction, have motivated designers, real estate players and construction companies to move towards off-site modular construction technologies (Bernstein et al. 2011). However, the actual approach to an industrialization and modularization process in the construction industry is forecast to provide for only a fraction of the expected global housing needs for the next decades. (Kieran and Timberlake 2004; Wallance 2015). Customized modularization of single buildings, and a fallacy of transportation are among the main factors that prevent the triggering of real economies of scale in industrial processes and there is consequently a widening of markets and reduction of costs (Wallance 2015). A new way to conceive and implement modularization in building design and

[21] Torricelli M. C. (2012), Perché fare ricerca per il futuro dell’abitare, in: Techne n.4 Housing Sociale, Firenze University Press, pp. 16-17. “The contributions published here (in the magazine issue - Ed.) highlight the need for an integrated and interdisciplinary approach towards

problems, the importance of participatory and collaborative approaches, the importance of experimentation and feedback of results”… “What is probably lacking from current research on the housing issue, which distinguished research over the past years, even if it is justified

in light of what was mentioned above, is the capability of enhancing the results which are necessarily partial, creating a network, rather than systematising models and theories, in order to produce innovative proposals confronting the housing emergency.”

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

construction processes is required, in order to significantly effect numbers and habits in the market. “Unlike the general perception, using modularization in building construction is not a binary decision on a choice between two alternatives: modular versus conventional. Different levels of modularization can be applied to construction” (Sharafi et al 2018). Although modularization provides a shorter completion time, standardization, reduction of waste and building site pollution, less disturbance at jobsite, and ease of fabrication (strong criteria for the majority of builders), other features of conventional technologies are still perceived as preferable: less design complexity, fewer limitations in design variation, easy transportation and supply of components, easy maneuverability on the construction site (Sharafi et al. 2018). Consequently, an interim goal for innovation in building technology is to hybridize modular and traditional construction technologies, by grouping the more replicable and mass-produced building components out of the single building custom-designed parts. The ability to substitute/replace components transforms the building into a flexible organism able to change throughout its lifecycle. Modern inter-modal transportation technology has provided relocations of modular units in effective and efficient ways (Liu et al. 2018). Because a consistent demand for a new type of housing is emerging in urban contexts based on temporality and flexibility, and existing technologies and models are inadequate, hybrid technologies can fill this demand.

Hybrid modular architecture and emerging housing behaviors.

Hybrid modular construction is a combination of on-site traditional structural technologies and off-site modular technologies (Lawson, Ogden and Goodier 2014). Hybrid modular construction is a conceptual separation of long-life building systems from short-life building systems (Mussinelli et al. 2017). In such a system, a traditionally built permanent structure hosts changeable, modular living modules. This building concept applied to residential typologies has been directly related to emerging housing behaviors in urban contexts. High mobility levels in the global professional working class requires “housing services” rather than traditional real estate products. The floor plan concept as reconfigurable clusters is composed of a variable number of individual microcosms (living modules) with a common area for sharing experience. This kind of housing technology is designed to provide all-inclusive services to students or young professionals with high mobility levels across different city networks in different countries. This transitory global professional class has spread widely and has resulted in innovative global working and living conditions (Sassen 1999). A potential innovation in building technology is a hybrid modular building in which some components could be removed and substituted for a technological upgrade and/or for reconfiguration. This will reduce retrofit costs and the lifecycle footprint of the building, to create economies of scale, standardization, modularization, and industrialization processes for the removable components, and it will extend the durability and the lifecycle of permanent components (Mussinelli et al 2017).

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

4.2 Temporary and permanent: new housing models and hybridization of the residential building By analyzing the housing behavior in urban areas we have seen how the early commercial diffusion of players who propose housing as a service, constitutes the interpretation that the market is beginning to give to an emerging real estate need: adapting the available building stock to the new housing behavior, which is largely designed on the basis of old and outdated social models. The commercial success of many of these cases shows the relevance of this interpretation and indicates the need to rethink the entire theoretical framework of the building model understood both as a process and as a product according with their business intuition. However, this renewal must not be implemented as another rigid adaptation to a given social and housing model. Rather it should be considered as a generational systemic evolution. The change itself should be considered at the core of the needed evolution. The continuous evolution of behavior is the constant factor that has to be answered by a new dynamic idea of technologies and typologies, which could follow the evolution of behavior as it changes over time. In other words, if the only permanent feature of the contemporary social organization is temporality in all its aspects and manifestations, we need to think of a building model that corresponds to it, structured to be able to change following the evolving needs of users’ housing behavior. The process to be adopted in a definition of the theoretical framework to re-conceive the housing building, is the modular hybridization. (see Appendix on hybridization) Hybridization means the mutation of the typology and technology of the residential building due to the needs expressed by new housing behavior. Basically, it is a matter of distinguishing the permanent typological and technological components from the respective temporary ones in relation to the identified characteristics of the new housing needs. As permanent components it means those characteristics and trends are considered to be “stable” and not destined to change over time. Therefore they can constitute the solid core of typological and technological structuring. Temporary components are those portions of housing functions more affected by changes with respect to the evolution of users needs – these are linked to the characteristics of habitation behaviors that respond to contingent circumstances. Therefore they are more subject to change and suffer a faster obsolescence of the typological and technological structures that support them. In the proposed approach, modularity is not conceived in a volumetric sense, but in a conceptual sense. It is a “functional modularity” rather then a “volumetric modularity”. The structuring of the performance framework in “modular groups” simplifies the organization and subsequent typological and technological structures organized by the assembly of conceptually distinct groups of parts.

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

4.3 Modular hybridization of typology

Typology follows the microstructure of society

With the analysis of the case studies in the previous chapter we have taken into account some concrete effects on the typological conception of residential buildings caused by the ongoing epochal change in the socio-economic structure of urban communities.

Permanent typological characteristics: individualization of the domestic space: cluster, hotspot of living pod floor

As already highlighted, the transformation of social and economic relations currently underway is structurally different from those of the past. It is characterized by an intrinsic dynamic character and by a progressive individualization of social-affective relationships. In the search for a consistent approach to this scenario, it would be rather contradictory to aim for a new typological model that would rigidly interpret the current social structure. On the contrary, the objective will be to free the model itself,assuming the configurative dynamism as a structural and founding element. From this point of view and focusing on typological aspects a profound review is necessary, of the classification categories of housing based on the size cut and the number of rooms and the specialization of the environments. As we have already seen, the process of the individualization of society tends to redefine all relational structures in the sphere of free individual choices. To define the typological approach within the new theoretical model proposed here, this concept is quite important. The possibility of re-composing and re-configuring the housing structure on the basis of all the possible varieties of social and emotional relationships existing between individuals today, must therefore be based on the awareness of the acquired individualization of relationships and consequently on a corresponding typological individualization of the living space.

As in other key passages in history, a society that regenerates itself on new cultural paradigms and on different modes of economic exchange, takes on different individual and collective lifestyles. This new structuring generates corresponding mutations in every architectural typology: residential, productive, administrative, and institutional. (see Appendix 2). On this assumption the thesis proposes to imagine what type of typological and technological modification in the housing field can generate the epochal change currently in progress in the globalized urban communities. Then a theoretical experimental approach to the residential building is proposed that is consistent with the typological and technological transformation identified.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 45 Social structure evolution scheme from nuclear society and individualized society.

Fig. 46 Typological evolution from apartment to individual microcosms

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

Temporary typological characteristics: Re-configurability, structural and physiological dynamism of interpersonal relationships

Therefore the â&#x20AC;&#x153;individualâ&#x20AC;? living space (individual microcosm, living pod) becomes the basic typological element for any possible distribution configuration. In other words, as a pre-established social type is missing, socio-affective and solidaritybond as well as family-type are dynamically defined starting from the free and individual choices of the subjects involved, including traditional ones. This typological structuring by the aggregation of individual-living pods constitutes the permanent typological character in a modular hybrid building, while their interchangeability and re-configurability represent its temporary typological character.

Modular hybrid typology: re-configurable relational housefull of individual pods

Below, in relation to the aforementioned considerations, we have analyzed the specific features through which the modular hybrid approach modifies the typology of the residential building with the aim of interpreting and responding to the changing social structure and the needs expressed by emerging housing behavior.

We have seen how the micro-social structuring of relationships has lost its character of stability to become fluid and changeable. The progressive and parallel increase in both the number of marriages and that of divorces is proof of this. However, the dynamism of the composition of the family-relational nuclei is also a structural fact in a traditional family structure (father, mother and children): from two singles to the formation of a family nucleus, followed by the growth of the number of members, and its subsequent reduction with the exodus of children in adulthood, ending with survival of one of the spouses who returns to his initial condition as a single. From the residential point of view, this dynamic is currently satisfied with subsequent shifts and migrations in apartments. They are initially increasingly large in the growth phase, and then progressively smaller in the reduction phase. A typological innovation capable of changing over time would therefore respond to both a structural datum related to social changes in progress linked to the fluidity of interpersonal relationships, but would also ultimately follow the natural and physiological dynamics within nuclear families, adapting progressively to the change in family composition. This could definitely avoid the often traumatic inconveniences due to no longer necessary periodic moves, perhaps also contributing in this way to more stable relationships.

As a very first consideration it must be said that the reference macroscenaristic framework defines the modular, residential hybrid building as a dense, multi-storey, urban type corresponding to the logic of reducing the consumption of soil, and of general environmental, energetic and cultural sustainability that have been investigated in the first part of this research.

2. The urban nature of the modular, residential hybrid building implies that the purpose of the parts of the building, which are more in contact with

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

the urban context to commercial activities open to the city, are preferably destined to socially aggregative functions, or public in the sense of open to all users of the building. 3. The individual microcosms (dwelling pods) are the basic constitutive typological elements. This assumption corresponds to the process of the individualization of the social structure. The sociological trend data related to the progressive increase in the number of singles and elderly singles, indicates the expansion of the period of life during which individuals pass as singles after their exit from the original family nucleus, before the formation of a family unit, or after the decomposition of it. 4. Another aspect is the need for social relations of proximity which, when just caused by the progressive individualization of society, assume an ever greater importance and centrality. The combination of microcosm autonomy and opportunities for social proximity (neighborhood), as an opportunity to share experience, is the basis of the attractiveness of the housing model proposed also in the analyzed case studies (co-living). 5. An absolutely fundamental feature is the necessity of the building system to reconfigure and reorganize its basic typological elements (housing pods) according to variable aggregations both in terms of composition (typological flexibility) and size (dimensional scalability). This feature has always been a constant target for housing innovation. The characteristics of the emerging housing behaviors require an evolutionary step forward in conceiving flexibility in building innovation.[22] The goal is to respond to various possible modification needs that may occur during the life cycle of the building. The succession of different users with different needs, or the evolution of needs the same users over time, makes it necessary to reconfigure the size and composition of the type. However, the housing pod must always be considered as constant and constitutive of any reorganization. Even in the case of the response to the needs of a family composed of several people,

[22] Schiaffonati F., Mussinelli E., Majocchi A., Tartaglia A., Riva R., Gambaro M. (2015), Tecnologia architettura e territorio, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna: “Il requisito della flessibilità, nelle sue diverse forme, è stato assunto come fulcro della sperimentazione progettuale, andando incontro alla richiesta di soluzioni tipologiche che ammettessero nel

tempo cambiamenti e adeguamenti anche funzionali. L’attenzione è stata quindi rivolta a garantire la flessibilità dell’alloggio, con soluzioni tipologiche alternative a parità di superficie utile netta, tagli dimensionali e modalità di aggregazione delle unità abitative che tenessero conto dei caratteri della domanda e delle sue dinamiche, possibilità d’uso sia degli spazi

interni sia di quelli esterni, garantendo l’adattabilità anche attraverso l’espansione o la riduzione della funzione residenziale. In sintesi l’intervento proposto si inserisce nel contesto secondo uno schema morfologico riconoscibile, strettamente correlato al disegno ambientale d’insieme, integrando la funzione residenziale e le nuove attività di servizio ai sistemi fun-

zionali e ambientali già presenti nell’area. Il progetto configura quindi una proposta insediativa “ad assetto variabile”, dove privacy e socialità, spazi da abitare e per lavorare, possono modificare la loro configurazione per accogliere una domanda mutevole nel tempo”. (Ibidem): “In linea con questa attività, sempre nel 2005, un ulteriore approfondimento è stato

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

the aggregation will take place finding spatiality and functionity stronger for more exclusive relationships among a certain number of housing pods. These preferential aggregation-links correspond to the particular nature of relationships between individuals.

Fig. 47 Evolution from condominium typology to living pod building

The combination of these assumptions leads to define the typology of the hybrid, modular residential building as an urban building complex composed of the aggregation of residential clusters and “public” functions. Clusters constitute the unity of proximal social relations and are formed by a certain number of housing pods together with a shared space belonging exclusively to the cluster. Within the

sviluppato sul tema “Innovazione tecnologica e sostenibilità nel progetto di edilizia residenziale”, nell’ambito del più generale progetto “Abitare domani”, promosso da un consorzio di cooperative della Lombardia in accordo con la Fondazione Politecnico di Milano, con l’obiettivo di giungere alla definizione di nuove tipologie abitative che garantissero flessibilità d’uso e

adeguatezza dei caratteri distributivi per una residenzialità temporanea, a basso costo, in particolare universitaria. I temi trattati hanno riguardato anche l’innovazione tecnologica relativa a materiali e dotazioni impiantistiche, oltre che l’adozione di modelli evoluti per la gestione e l’organizzazione dei servizi. In particolare, l’unità di ricerca del Dipartimento di Sci-

enza e tecnologie dell’ambiente costruito (Best), “Progettazione e gestione dei sistemi edilizi e ambientali”, diretta da Schiaffonati, ha individuato come ambiti di approfondimento la flessibilità tecnologica applicata alla distribuzione interna, all’attrezzamento e all’arredabilità dello spazio, le prestazioni e caratteristiche dei subsistemi tecnologici in relazione

alla durabilità e al risparmio energetico, le caratteristiche dei sistemi impiantistici con riferimento all’analisi del valore nel rapporto costi/prestazioni. Durante la ricerca è stata effettuata una sperimentazione progettuale per la realizzazione di un complesso per la residenza temporanea studentesca in un comparto attuativo di circa 13.000 mq all’interno del Pro-

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

housing clusters different re-configurability scenarios must be possible, such as aggregation according to planned and preconfigured scenarios, as well as any really feasible grouping. Just as the traditional cuts of the apartments correspond to the structuring of society according to the paradigm of the nuclear family, the proposed living cluster typologically corresponds to the one that from the sociological point of view Laslett defines with the concept of houseful, understood as the spatial set of more “domestic groups” that reside in the same building or set of premises. (Laslet 1985). The term is used by him to define the spatial physical relations generated by the new modalities of socio-affective relationships and family forms including those “without structure” (single person nuclear families).

Fig. 48. Living pods cluster. Typological dynamic configurability and living pods aggregability according with strength of socio affective relations among individual users.

gramma integrato di intervento del nuovo grande insediamento Santa Giulia a Rogoredo14. Il progetto ha sviluppato possibili alternative morfo-tipologiche, funzionali e distributive nell’ipotesi di una maggiore variabilità delle utenze e delle destinazioni d’uso, rispetto al modello insediativo rigido proposto dal Piano, che poneva evidenti problemi realizzativi

e gestionali, vista la limitata flessibilità dell’impianto non fungibile per altre tipologie di utenze (domanda tradizionale, cooperative di abitazione, famiglie). In questa logica la revisione dell’impianto insediativo si è posta gli obiettivi di mitigare l’effetto di elevata densità insediativa dell’intervento; incrementare, qualificare e valorizzare le dotazioni di verde

di vicinato; definire “unità di intervento” dimensionate sia in considerazione delle più opportune condizioni di realiz- zabilità nel tempo da parte degli operatori, sia delle esigenze di flessibilità connesse alla variabilità e compatibilità delle utenze; definire schemi morfologici e tipologici compatibili con i diversi mix funzionali”

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

From this important consideration it follows that the type of housing cluster does not correspond unequivocally to a specific type of family structure, but intends to support the multiplicity of possible socio-affective relationships that are considered, in any case, based on the free combination of individual housing pods. The hybrid modular approach allows a conception of flexibility as a permanent possibility for typology to re-configure itself following the evolution of usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; housefull along the entire lifecycle of the building. In the description of the typological structuring of the residential, modular hybrid building, the level of theoretical systematization does not go beyond what has been explained so far. The specific design definition of these principles is devolved to the experimentation phase. Therefore the level of the quality of the experimental solutions will depend on the level of the correspondence of the system elaborated to the typological principles described. These principles should be considered as basic typological performance requirements of each modular, residential, hybrid system. The definition of the typological quality parameters will also depend on the specific category of the design theme to be faced in any possible applicative case described in the specific paragraph of this research.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

4.4 Modular Hybridization of Technology

From the technological point of view, the modular hybrid approach tries to match the standardization and replicability needs of industrial production, with the intrinsically “custom made” nature of the building construction. In the past, “totalizing” industrialized technological approaches have not allowed the summarizing of these two aspects with the resulting in a failure to attempt to generate real economies of scale necessary to trigger real industrial processes with mass production and consequent cost reductions. The modular hybrid approach, on the other hand, seeks to avoid a “totalizing” technological approach, which concerns the entire building organism. Conceptual differentiation into temporary parts and permanent parts allows the application of differentiated technologies and production processes according to criteria of greater or lesser convenience in overall consideration of the entire life cycle of the building. In accordance with this approach for permanent components it might still be convenient to adopt traditional construction technologies. The reason is that the diversity and specificity of each individual context does not actually allow any type of standardization or modularization of these elements, making it uneconomic and inconvenient to adopt industrialized production logics, falling back into the known problems of excessive proliferation of “special pieces” and an explosion of transportation costs (see Appendix 1). The concentration of all custom made aspects in permanent components, allows on the other hand, the means to compact, modularize and standardize the temporary parts, especially in their basic typological component: the housing pod. This can be achieved by concentrating the highest number of technological equipment used in standard modular units and by unifying and standardizing the interface for mechanical, technological and control connections. This approach would entail the possibility of implementing industrial production processes for everything that is downstream of the connection interface, towards the housing components. It is easy to understand that there is a point of balance between the area of relevance of the housing modules and the convenience of their modularization of standardization and industrial production. Obviously the more housing features are included in the module, the greater the convenience in reducing costs that large-scale production allows, but at the same time it increases the risks of “specialization” and of diseconomies in “transport”. The modular hybrid approach makes it possible to identify this point of

Technological modular hybridization - large-scale production of single components

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

equilibrium in the characteristics and functions of the connection interface and to dispose different technologies for the different parts of the building. This in order to obtain the best result both from the traditional technologies applied to the permanent parts of the building, and from the large-scale industrialization applied to the temporary ones with higher technological content.

Fig. 49 Hybrid modular: from rigid structure to flexible organism

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

4.5 The modular hybrid building: decomposing and grouping subsystems according to life cycles length The conceptual processes of modular hybridization aim to evolve the typological and technological conception of the residential building to accord with the new housing behaviors. As a result of this process, the research develops a meta-design approach in order to reconceive the entire building organism both as a product and as a process. The core of this approach is to propose the conceptual decomposition of a building’s long-life systems (permanent systems with low technological content) from short-life systems (temporary systems with high technological content and fast obsolescence). In this way it is intended to identify within the construction the “temporary” and “modifiable” portion, as structurally distinct and separable from the “permanent” core of the construction, with the aim of making it dynamically adaptable to changes in typological needs and technological requirements, along the entire life cycle of the building.

Fig. 50 Hybrid modular building scheme.

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

Permanent mother structure and temporary residential components

he whole set of long life systems (called the “mother structure”) constitute the permanent core of typological and technological functions, which are not affected by the changes of needs and behaviors or by social and economic structure. Its functional requirements are related to basic distribution principles, energy, structural aspects, but also connected with the approach to the urban context in relation to the objectives of density and sustainability in land use. On the other hand, temporary systems (called residential components) are the technological apparatuses and the typological solutions that more closely relate to the user and which determine the satisfaction of the needs in terms of services provided. The proposed approach allows the beginning of a process of concentration in functional modules and a standardization of these apparatuses. The high technological content and the consequent high economic values of these devices, together with their modularization and standardization, are the necessary conditions for their progressive production on a large scale and within effective industrialization.

Differentiated levels of industrialization

This approach allows the hybridization of the building technologies by applying differentiated levels of industrialization, prefabrication and modularization, to the different permanent or temporary subsystems, also in consideration of their specific economic values and their speeds of obsolescence. The release of the temporary component from the long-term needs satisfied by the permanent component, allows the processes of modularization and industrialization of housing components, which become elementary, individual units to compose, disassemble and reconfigure different typological solutions. It should be noted that, in accordance with the reference approach, the word “modular” is used to define the modular, hybrid building, should refer to functional and technological modularity, rather than volumetric modularity. It is a conceptual modularity linked to particular “equipped” portions of living space and complete modules of plant terminal systems.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 51 Traditional and hybrid building llfe cycle confrontation.

TRADITIONAL BUILDING

HYBRID BUILDING

MOBILE

RIGID

Short life cycle systems

long life cycle Systems structure technical services energy supplier common spaces vertical connections

Demolition

Refurbishments (demolition+reconstruction)

LIFE 2

LIFE CYCLE 50 years

Demolition Reconstruction

TECHNOLOGY industrialized mass production life cycle: 10 years

TECHNO-TYPOLOGICAL UPGRADING

Mother Structure life

Dismanteling

Housing Units Cycles

Plug-in plug-out substitution of housing pods

LIFE CYCLE 50 yaers

LIFE 1

Refurbishments (demolition+reconstruction)

TECHNO-TYPOLOGICAL UPGRADING

LIFE CYCLE 100 years

LONG AND SHORT LIFECYCLE SYSTEMS ARE STUCK TOGETHER IN ONE SINGLE RIGID BUILDING

TECHNOLOGY advanced prefabbrication life cycle: 100 years

living services interior fitting local networks configurability costumization

Full plug out of housing units

Life cycle of a hybrid modular building

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

The conceptual and physical distinction between building sub-systems according to their life cycle length, substantially changes the dynamics of the building life cycle itself. In a traditional building the physical interpenetration of systems with different life cycles forces the implementtion of any technological and typological adaptation through strongly invasive retrofitting interventions (demolitions, renovations, etc.), with a strong impact in terms of energy used, waste disposal, etc. Unlike in a modular hybrid building, modular components that have reached the end of their life cycle can be easily removed and replaced with new components through simple plug in/out interventions. This is definitely less invasive and less expensive in terms of the environmental footprint. Moreover the exhausted components can also be more sustainably dismantled according to industrial procedures and eventually subjected to reconditioning procedures for possible reuse. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources and data concerning existing buildings with which to analytically verify the efficiency of the hybrid modular approach. (Lavagna 2011, Ghattas et. al. 2013)[23] However we can make deductive considerations. In a traditional building the end cycle of the entire building organism coincides with the end of its shorter-lived systems. In fact beyond this short-limits, substantial re-construction interventions start to be necessary in different parts of the building. On the contrary, the life cycle end of a modular

FIg. 52 Traditional / hybrid modular retro-fitting life cycle timeline confrontation.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

hybrid building coincides with the end-cycle of its most durable systems, i.e. its mother structure. The whole length of the life cycle of residential buildings and the footprint of retrofit activities play a key role in urban sustainability. The impact of the definitive dismantling of the mother structure at the end of its life cycle is therefore greatly reduced: first of all because it becomes necessary over a period corresponding to a multiple of the life cycle of a traditional building. Moreover it needs less invasive intervention as the systems to be “demolished” would still be significantly reduced in quantity, because most of the building’s housing components could be extracted and disposed of in the manner seen above. Similar dynamics already occurs in the practice of the existing building heritage. The life cycle limit of 50 years considered as the theoretical reference by the literature approaches to the LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) is in fact disregarded, because in reality buildings exceed this limit by far. This is achieved by implementing numerous invasive and reconstructive interventions that actually can be considered as a substantial fragmented and diluted substitution over the time of the shorter life cycle components. This dynamic of the real life of buildings, completely impossible to trace and study due to the total lack of homogeneous data (see Appendix 2), is traumatic precisely because it is conceptually contradictory considering the rigidity of the traditional building structure. In accordance with the case studies’ analyses, it is assumed that the manager of a modular hybrid residential building will be a housing services provider, that proposes all inclusive subscriptions to its residential services throughout the life cycle of the building. It is the player responsible for interpreting the change in housing demand with respect to the building product offered. Also with regard to the ownership structure of a modular, hybrid building, different considerations must be made for the mother structure and the living components. The mother structure should be the main asset from the point of view of real estate value by

[23] Lavagna M. (2011), Life cycle assessment in ediliza: lo stato dell’arte in Italia, in “La rete italiana lca: prospettive e sviluppi del life cycle assessment in Italia”, a cura di Cappellaro F., Scalbi S., Enea, Roma. “La valutazione LCA in questo quadro è ancora ai margini, nonostante sia forse l‘unico orizzonte possibile per una valutazione ambientale oggettiva e condivisa. La motivazione è da ricercarsi nella difficoltà di accesso ai dati

ambientali (manca a tutt‘oggi una banca dati italiana, anche se è in corso di elaborazione da parte dell‘ITC-CNR una banca dati nazionale LCA di materiali e prodotti per l‘edilizia ), nella scarsità di dati primari disponibili (veicolati per esempio dalle etichette di prodotto come l‘EPD), nella complicatezza del metodo (se utilizzato in valutazioni approfondite), nella rarità di operatori competenti (soprattutto nelle sedi decisionali).”

A Literature Review and Gap Analysis, Concrete Sustainability Hub, MIT (Massachussetts Institute of Technology). “While the existing body of literature is robust and valuable, the lack of consistency within the methodologies makes it difficult to definitively reach such conclusions. Particularly, there is no common methodology to adequately address a wide range of building forms and lifetimes in various geographic regions. In addition, most studies relied

Management model and ownership structure

on commercial databases as the main data source – there was an overall absence of local primary data. This lack of data illuminates the potential for considerable uncertainty within quantitative results, an aspect that was not adequately considered in most publications. It is vital that LCA studies report uncertainty, not only to understand the confidence of the results provided, but also to enable comparison and inform data collection efforts.”

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

defining the position of the building in the city, and the quality of its connection to primary urban utilities, as well as a certain amount of space, services and even commercial businesses available to the entire building. Instead, the ownership of the housing components could have different cycles and times. Even if they belong to a single entity, the modules could be hired or leased by the manufacturing companies. They can be periodically replaced at the end of the cycle, when the technological obsolescence of the components should occur as compared to the new and more advanced solutions made available from industrial production. Therefore the same mother structure can host several successive life cycles of housing components corresponding to the succession of different users or simply by a technological and typological adaptation process defined by the operator to update its offer on the market. Although the model is based on the idea that users are “subscribers” to housing services for a variable but still limited period of time, the theoretical approach does not exclude forms of ownership or “exclusive use” for the medium-long term time of individual housing components or groupings of them, without prejudice to the unitary management of utilities and basic services related to the mother structure.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

4.6 Metaproject: urban housing modular hybrid building

The mother structure performs the functions traditionally expected at the connection of the building with the urban context: it is the design interface between the geometry of the intervention plot and the geometry of the housing components systems housed. It constitutes the basis for the static and plant connection of the housing components. It has the connection with urban networks and utilities (energy, electricity, water, sewerage, internet). It defines its own level of convenience in self-sufficiency in relation to urban networks (electric self production, phytodepuration drainage, drinking water management and recirculation, etc.).

Mother structure. Long life cycle subsystems

The housing components are configured as the elements that best interpret the housing behavior of the users. From the typological point of view they define their aggregative criterion starting from the concept of individual microcosmic clusters (housing pods) that we have identified as the main typological trend of the analyzed case studies. From this base the individual microcosm is considered as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;base brickâ&#x20AC;? that can eventually be replaced and reconfigured over time: it can compose different and more articulate typological configurations. Hence the possibility of ideally aggregating multiple modules by breaking down the cluster into subdivisions that reflect a different organization of relationships between users: narrower (new families), or further (families that decrease due to the departing of children with housing units made available and autonomous for new users). By stressing the relationship between the mother structure and housing components, it can even be possible to hypothesize the realization of the single mother structure and the progressive filling of it with housing components according to the quantitative and qualitative needs of the users.

Housing components. Short life cycle subsystems

From the technological point of view, the housing units must provide all the services offered by the operator for the individual microcosm, both in terms of furnishings and technological equipment. From this point of view the functions of sleeping, eating, personal hygiene, access to the network, study and entertainment must be guaranteed. The quality of integration between hardware, management and control software for all these functions is a feature of fundamental importance

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

for the quality of the service provided by the housing component. These pods are also the basis for the evaluation of the tariff system for housing services. After defining a flat monthly fee for the subscription to housing services, the control of the energy profiles of the individual users made by the housing pod allows aggregation of rewarding services to the energetically virtuous user according to objective parameters, verifiable in real time by both the user and the manager. This opens a broader horizon regarding the relationship between manager and user, which will be better developed in the paragraph dedicated to the management and control interface.

Interfaces and connections

Considering the functional and structural separation of short and long life cycle building systems, the definition of the connection interface becomes a feature of prime importance. The need to achieve really independent life cycles requires a conception of the connections in an easily reversible way. It follows that an important part of the study of a modular hybrid building system consists in defining the performance specifications of both mechanical and technological connections that allow a rapid and simplified connection of the various systems (the “4P”: Put in Place Plug and Play), but also of disconnection, in case of the need for the replacement of the housing components at the end of the cycle. Although this connection constitutes the border between systems belonging to the mother structure and housing components, the conceptual and technological

Fig. 53 Hybrid modular housing construction system

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 54 Hybrid modular building Type A: Extended other structure also including empty space for living pods and hosting devices to equip the living pod spaces

Fig. 55 Hybrid modular building Type B: Essential Mother structure hosting living pods made with flat pack empty volumetric modules equipped with living devices.

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

boundary that separates the two areas must here be left undefined. In fact, it is not the task of this theoretical framework and definition to establish rigidly which parts of the building should belong to the mother structure, and which should be included among the housing components. The only assumption is that the functions considered permanent are absolved by the mother structure, while those considered temporary are included among the modular housing components. Those functions are the most equipped from the technological point of view and the more subject to the wear of time. The consideration of an exact design definition of the limit between these two worlds according to the technologies and construction and production processes used and according with the convenience and economy balance, is therefore left to the experimental application.

Community and identity: control and management application

The real asset of a housing services provider is the community made up of all its users. The strength of the link between user and provider becomes the guarantee of this value and the true competitive advantage among competitor players. From this point of view the management app becomes the fundamental platform through which it is possible to explain the potential of this community of users of housing services. From this perspective, the housing pod can become a platform upon which to aggregate, the main housing service being provided

Fig. 56 Housing account scheme

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

as a series of additional services, which although they may already be present on the market, can find in the housing service their natural symbiosis. Mobility services, food, home deliveries, can be integrated and constitute an additional “plus” of the supplementary service. In this way, the integrating service manager capitalizes the asset constituted by its users, by defining framework agreements with managers of integrative services with additional advantageous conditions. Integrative residential services can be made available for users as packages that can be added to the basic subscription. They can be given as a “bonus” to reward users with virtuous behaviors in the areas of energy consumption, waste management or even in the context of social design initiatives – in collaboration, for example, with the public administration or welfare system. This aspect also becomes decisive for the awareness of the user belonging to a community that shares certain principles and lifestyles deemed “sustainable”. As we have seen, this is a typical characteristic of the sharing economy. As well we have seen that the lack of a “sense of belonging” to the community could be a reason for the failure of some co-living initiatives.[24] A primary aspect of the design of the user-side management app is the design of the interface and the definition of the interaction modes. The gamification characteristics as we know play a key role in the sharing economy, to facilitate the interaction between the platform and the user, especially when the user is expected to pass from a passive use of the services to an active participation in values sharing. On the provider side the app is a strategic tool to optimize management and maintenance costs. From this point of view, the pushed integration between the housing hardware and management software is a feature of prime importance. The integration of the various technological components normally present in an apartment as separate objects, in a single module fully integrated with a unique management software, allows the overcoming at the origin the problems of IOT, connection between technological components and a focus on the functional objectives: to achieve remote interventions, predictive maintenance, optimization of energy consumption through the profiling of user behavior and habits, etc.

[24] This consideration could ask serious questions about how to reinvent the public initiative in the social housing sector whose propulsive role seems to be unable to promote a sense of shared values in what are nowadays more and more heterogeneous communities. Instead, this kind of approach could determine a base of minimum common values – small but strong enough to regenerate community relations of proximity.

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

Fig. 57 Levels of social connections in a hybrid modular building and role of digital platform in realizing them (source: applicative workshop).

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

In a modular hybrid building, different levels of social relations are interwoven from the scale of the individual to the urban, defining the access at hierarchical levels: •

POD. Personal, interpersonal and virtual relationships: individual microcosm, web-connected housing pods, or possible nuclear aggregations of multiple dwellings inside the housing clusters (multiple components families).

•

CLUSTER. Proximal social relationships: housing clusters consisting of housing pods and shared space.

•

BUILIDING. Closed urban social relations: exclusive services for building users.

•

NEIGHBORHHOD (CITY). Open urban social relations: aggregative activities (outsourced management, commercial activities).

Access control and regulation. Structuring of inhabited social relations

In the perspective of this scale of relational levels and considering the spatial reconfigurability of the housing clusters, the selected accessibility criteria assumes particular relief and importance in planning flexible passes at ever narrower levels, from the city up to the individual pod. The identification of a community of users actually introduces the concept of “housing account” as the realization of the relationship of supply to a single user of a personal and customizable package of living services: through the integration of ancillary services as well as through the active participation of the user with a process of gamification of the interface aimed to reward “virtuous” behaviors with bonuses of various types. This bond of affiliation is a huge value that could also be prevalent with respect to the physical living pod, by way of which the housing service is actually provided. This prefigures the possibility of an effective portability of the housing account in a scenario in which the same player can provide pods in different cities, with the same housing services appropriately configured according to the preferences of a specific user. Such a player could propose “portable” housing services accounts, giving to the users the possibility of moving the preferences of his living pod from one city to the other. If the need arises, the virtual portability can perhaps be combined with a supplementary service of the “physical transfer” of the content of the housing pod. It should be noted that this has no connection with the physical and architectural identity of the solutions present in different cities, but only with the methods of managing and customizing the interface with the user.

Housing account portability

100

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

4.7 Possible application cases

The attempt at a theoretical systematization that the research investigates in relation to the proposal to adopt modular hybrid systems for urban residential building, has focused on the deepening of approaches to typological innovation and technological innovation from the point of view of user experience and life cycle management. The study does not intend to correspond in any way to any specific configuration or design solution. As already mentioned on several occasions, any consideration regarding the suitability or convenience of a specific design solution in relation to the objectives and characteristics of the specific modular hybrid system developed, is assigned to the testing of the application. Nevertheless research can be defined by the possible applicative case studies in which modular hybrid systems can be used within the physical range area outlined by the research: the urban dense context, or the urban context to be densified. It can be divided in two cases: the intervention in the existing building stock and to the new construction intended as building substitution. The intervention in the existing heritage can be considered in its meanings of typological reconfiguration or functional reactivation of abandoned or incomplete buildings. On the issue of the substitution of the building stock, two cases can be considered: urban units of integrated housing services, and the type of industrialized modular hybrid tall building. Existing Building Stock In the case of intervention on the existing building stock, an in-depth study of application cases must begin with the consideration that by according with the hybrid modular approach every traditional building can be also considered as a fixed set of systems with differentiated life cycles. Therefore the application will be able to identify the various cases relating to the urban fabric and the exhausted building consistency in which it is possible to identify similar and repeatable methods of intervention. The first criterion concerns the identification in a building of the “potential mother structure”, considered as the core of building systems with substantial residual life cycle potential. This core should be conceptually and physically separated by the same building’s systems arrived at, at the end of their life cycle. By adopting what has been explained as a methodological criterion in the classification, some primary application categories can be identified:

Typological reconfiguration

Considering the largest part of the urban residential building patrimony currently used, it is possible to verify that the length considered as the maximum for the life of a building in the International LCA Theory established as 50 years, is widely disregarded. In fact most of the buildings are used far beyond this limit, thanks to more or less complex renovations, very often sporadic, partial and normally not coordinated with each other. This allows

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

101

buildings that have existed for 70/100 years to be a large part of the residential stock available in urban areas. Recent tragic events in Italy testify that in any case, the life cycle of a building is limited even for systems with a longer, life cycle expectancy (such as structures). In any case, the longevity of the building stock shows that if many building systems reach more quickly the end of their life cycle (systems, equipment, facades, size and configuration of the apartments), others last longer (structures, connections, distributions and common areas, etc.). This consideration effectively applies the categories of the modular hybrid approach to existing residential buildings. The main structure in this case will be in the systems still active in the building, while the intervention will consist in the elimination (and disposal) of the exhausted systems and their replacement with modular housing components (pods) organized according to typological and technological criteria consistent with the modular hybrid approach. In fact, it is a matter of reinterpreting typologies and construction technologies designed on the basis of a certain social organization and of certain living behaviors, in order to make them suitable for the needs emerging from the current and future society and their corresponding housing needs. The same approach can be applied to inactive, abandoned or incomplete structures, also for example, if originally designed for different functions other than residential. An unfinished office building whose construction has remained at the level of the structure alone, or an industrial building, disused but in a good state of health from the point of view of systems with a long life cycle, can be considered as mother structures to be equipped appropriately to make them capable of accommodating modular housing components. This process transforms the existing building into a modular hybrid building system.

Reactivation and recovery of abandoned, incomplete or inactive building stock

The blind facades could be considered as “urban supports” completely similar to “virtual mother structures”. The possibility of making them habitable with the installation of modular housing components could be a “light” application of the hybrid modular approach oriented to residential uses, even temporary, aimed at giving completion to incomplete pieces of the minute urban fabric.

Blind facades

Building stock replacement Although the intervention in the existing buildings could be the most substantial part of application cases, certainly the substitution of building stock and the subsequent construction from the green field allow an exploration in a deeper way of the potentialities of modular hybrid systems. In any case, the opportunity of building substitution, urban densification and construction from scratch are

102

4. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

not so remote if we think that in most cases and especially in urban suburbs the demolition and reconstruction is undoubtedly the most economical and convenient intervention. Notwithstanding that even in these cases, it is always possible to limit the demolition to exhausted systems only. In this case it falls into the previous case that concerns the intervention on the existing heritage.

Urban unit of integrated housing services

Modular Units of Urban Services and Accommodations (MUUSA). These are small buildings that are built by filling up residual urban voids in order to densify and sew up the minute building fabric on time. This can be suitable for an urban fabric in a crowded and consolidated urban context. Also suburbs can be an application field for unbits in order to densify the urban fabric and increase the urban identity.

Industrialized hybrid modular tall building

Industrialized Hybrid Modular Tall Buildings. The main application case in which it is possible to fully explore the typological, technological and productive potentialities of hybrid modular systems, is undoubtedly the dense building par excellence, namely the tall building. This application case can be referred both to urban contexts in the phase of rapid urbanization, but also as a strategy of rehabilitation, densification and the reduction of land consumption in the suburbs. This can occur in socially and economically stabilized contexts, through the intervention on micro-exhausted residential quarters entirely replaced by a single modular hybrid building and the consequent reclamation and return to urban agricultural uses of the liberated space.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

103

104

5. CONCLUSIONS

Considering the global demographic trends for the coming decades, and from the perspective of the main scenarios, it is forseen that around a billion new dwellings will be needed by 2050. Studies concerning the use of land and the use of energy resources by the various types of settlements, leads to a definition of the typology of the multi-storey urban building as a strategic choice for housing innovation. From the point of view of building production, the well-known resistance of the sector to the diffusion of processes of modularization and large-scale industrialization, is confirmed. In fact, analysis based on current data of the productivity of the sector, show that only a fractional part of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future housing needs could be provided using modularized and industrialized construction processes. This represents a strong limit to the contribution that the sector can make in achieving the global goals of the reduction of emissions and the environmental footprint. Nevertheless, starting from the year 2,000, the signs of market interest towards forms of modularization and off-site construction and industrialization are evident, but they remain only partial and specific solutions without generating a systemic transformation. The research has pointed out how these sporadic and occasional signs of interest coincide with a profound process of the modification of urban behaviors linked mainly to the reorganization of the global economy. Its structure is evolved into a constellation of urban poles that work as interfaces among the productive networks of their own territories with the system of economic exchanges of the entire planet. This structure has generated the rebirth and the growth of urban centers that have conformed to the needs of a new productive class. This group of people is composed mainly of professional figures essential to the functioning of the global exchange system and the urban growth and reconfiguration of urban poles (finance, trading, communication, design and urban design, architecture). A common feature of these new professionals is represented by the fluid working and housing behaviors oriented towards mobility, flexibility and temporality. This mode of living and working in the city is growing very fast and will become a substantial and perhaps a predominant part of urban living conditions for the future. This phenomenon is reflected in a long series of sociological studies that began in the 60s to analyze the metamorphosis of micro affective social structures that define interpersonal relationships. The emerging trends are leading to a substantial overtaking of the nuclear family (father, mother and children). This type of family was functional for productive relationships followed by the first industrial revolution. The single nuclei had to contain only an active or future work force, determining a progressive exclusion of the exhausted labor force (elderly) expelling them from the family living perimeter (housefull). The current transformation dynamics have led to an evolution of the social structure which,

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

on the one hand, sees individualization as a basic structural factor (consistent and progressive growth of single-member families), but on the other hand, generates forms of the aggregation of individuals who (almost paradoxically) determine a return to an open and enlarged housing area. This trend has been going on for several years. Collaborative cohabitation forms such as co-housing have also led to normative definitions often oriented towards collective forms or social and subsidized residence. The great recession (2007) and the widespread diffusion of information technology, began to spread different forms of a sharing economy. This new approach has actualized the potential of the network in interpreting the relationship between “individualization” and “sharing” even within the built space. Following exactly the dynamics of the processes we have described in the transformation of the cities generated by the globalization of exchanges, the collaborative economy has initially affected the working spaces (co-working) and, more recently, the housing spaces (co-living). Three main features make the co-living different from the previous forms of shared housing. The first is the perfect correspondence between the housing model proposed and the contemporary socio-affective structure of the urban community. The second is the role of the digital platforms as the only means to relate the link between “individual” and “shared”. The third is the characterization of the business model mainly as a supply of integrated housing services rather than a simple real estate product. For this reason, the research has considered co-living as a relevant and significant phenomenon seeking a meaningful link between the analysis of new housing needs and a proposal for the reorganization of the theoretical reference framework for typological and technological innovation in architecture. The phenomenon of co-living has been analyzed, identifying the main subjects and selecting among these those who had already started to develop architectural typologies specifically designed according to the needs of their users. The analysis has led to the identification of trend indicators both in terms of management methods and in terms of “typological and technological invariants” linked to the specific housing model. In particular, there are two trends that are considered significant: the typological organization consisting in groups (clusters) of individual living microcosms (living pods), collected around a common floor space (hot spot), normally used as a sharing space and equipped with a fully functional kitchen (chef kitchen). The basic typological unit is constituted by the individual microcosm, a space that contains all the minimal living functions (bathroom, kitchen, wardrobes and storage units, living space and nightly space) aimed at providing for the complete functional self-sufficiency of each user. From the technological point of view there is a trend to interpret these functions of the microcosm as living equipment, technological components mainly standardized and reproducible in large scale. From the point of view of construction technologies, a hybrid approach has been analyzed that makes extensive use of traditional building systems but with important elements of innovation. Off-site

105

106

5. CONCLUSIONS

manufacturing processes are largely used to provide building modules or components and even relevant parts of the construction. In the case of the Ollie building in New York, the entire building is built by implementing modular off-site construction technologies for the housing microcosms, assembled on site on a concrete ground floor containing the common spaces. From the point of view of service management the main features are: the all-inclusive nature of the fee and the exclusive use of the digital platform (app) for the provision of the service that is increasingly configured as a real subscription (account) to integrated housing services. In the propositional part, the thesis makes a contribution for the elaboration of a reference for a theoretical framework for the technological and typological innovation of housing, starting from the characteristics of the emerging housing needs in urban areas analyzed in the first part of the research. It is not a matter of proposing the umpteenth constructive system or productive process, but rather of enabling the implementation of unused innovations and experimentations, starting from a conceptual redefinition of the entire building system, in order to make it coherent with the new housing behavior, and at the same time to trigger and accelerate dynamics of effective industrialization and modularization processes in building construction. The definition of a systematic paradigm that organizes modular hybrid building systems is the target of the thesis experimental proposition. To systematize and redesign the combination of traditional technologies with modular technologies, in order to make the building typologically flexible, and make the construction industry more permeable to the dynamics of industrialization and modularization on a large scale. To exit the binary logic according to which a construction must necessarily be all traditional or completely modular, opens new horizons to innovation and allows on the one hand to optimize the advantages of both approaches, and at the same time, on the other hand to overcome the respective limits. The definition of the hybridization criteria to establish the boundary between traditional technological components and modular technological components, is the key point for design also in relation to the life cycle of the building and to the modalities with which it is subject to change over time. The evaluation of what remains and what changes in a building therefore introduces the temporary / permanent paradigm that becomes the main criterion of hybridization that brings together housing needs, technological choices and typological configuration. Over time, the research has deepened, developed and defined the possible hybridization processes both for technological and typological aspects. The length of the life cycle of each component has become the main criterion for the definition of the technological choice: likewise, from the typological point of view the permanent functional components and those more subjected to change over time have been identified. The combination of these technological and typological hybridization processes based on the permanent / temporary paradigm reconfigures the building complex as a combined system of two subsystems: a permanent one (mother structure)

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

realized on site with traditional technologies, grouping together the long life cycle subsystems, and containing the main shared building functions. The other main subsystem is composed of all the temporary parts (housing components) grouping all the systems with the highest speed of obsolescence into standard replaceable modules produced off-site, and containing the more subject-modifying residential functions. Those correspond to the microcosms of the individual users and the possible substitutions / reconfigurations to which they are subject with the changing of their respective needs. This theoretical systematization of the modular hybrid building actually represents a change in the perception of a residential building from a rigid object to a dynamic organism. The typology is no longer the crystallized photography of a particular socio-economic structure of human relationships, but becomes a very consistent image of that â&#x20AC;&#x153;fluidityâ&#x20AC;? of urban behaviors and of social structuring. The permanent change typical of the historical context in which we are living and perhaps defined in its continuous dynamism with respect to the past, becomes the genetic feature of the construction. The last part of the research, summarizes the guidelines for a meta-design of a modular residential hybrid building, resuming all the main typological, technological and management characteristics, and defining the possible cases of application. Although the research has focused on the residential function, the proposed systemic re-structuring of the building can be extended in future researches and in-depth studies to other typologies toward the concept of a universal urban typology hosting in its permanent mother structure different functionally specialized replaceable modules, allowing different configurations of them, always dynamically modifiable and redefined.

107

108

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledge Professor Elena Mussinelli and Professor Andrea Tartaglia in the Department of Architecture, Construction Engineering and Built Environment of Polytechnic University of Milan, Professor Yu Bai and PhD Candidate Filomena Innella from Monash University, and thanks for the financial support provided by the industry partners and their representatives: Luca Brutti and Gianni Sperandio (Progress spa), Domenico Bosatelli, Giovanni Lomboni, Corrado Vigani (Gewiss spa), Andrea Niboli, Simone Niboli, Nicola Zanca (Valsir spa), Vito Allegretti (Siemens Italia). Thanks also for the contribution and participation of Sara Taddei, Roberta Cazzaniga and William Maggio (Dove Vivo spa). Thanks for the support and contribution of engineer Roberto Mandurino, and architect Diana Ranghetti. A special thanks to Cesare Casati and the inspiring vision he profused in his lifelong professional and publishing engagement to promote a comprehensive vision to innovate architecture with an industrial design approach, imagining and anticipating our future lifestyle behaviors.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

109

110

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY Reference Scenarios

•

AA.VV. (2015), Emerging trends in remodeling markets, JCHS - Joint center for housing studies of Harvard University.

•

Losasso M, (2010), Percorsi dell’innovazione. Industria, edilizia, tecnologie, progetto, Clean, Napoli.

•

AA.VV. (2014), Word Urbanisation prospects, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

•

Lucarelli M.T., Mussinelli E., Daglio L. (a cura di) (2018), Progettare resiliente, Maggioli Editore.

•

AA.VV. (2011), Prefabrication and Modularization, increasing productivity in construction industry, Small market report, McGraw-Hill construction, New York.

•

Martine G., McGranahan G., Montgomery M., Fernandez-Castilla R. (2008), The New Global Frontier: Urbanization, Poverty and Environment in the 21st century, Hearthscan, London.

•

Avitabile F. (2013), Prospettive ibride negli spazi urbani contemporanei, tesi di dottorato in Progettazione urbana e urbanistica, Università Federico II di Napoli.

•

Montgomery M. (2008) The demography of the urban transition: what we know and don’t know, The New Global Frontier: Urbanization, Poverty and Environment in the 21st century, Hearthscan, London.

•

BongaartsJ.(2001),HouseholdSize and Composition in the Developing World, Policy Research Division, Population Council.

•

Schiaffonati F., Mussinelli E. (a cura di) (2015), Tecnologia Architettura Territorio, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna.

•

Ciaramella A. (2007), Il processo di produzione edilizia dal progetto alla gestione: le premesse, le fasi, i ruoli, Libreria Clup, Milano.

•

Ceragioli G., Comoglio Maritano N. (1995), Adaptable Technologies, typologies and evaluations for lowcost housing in the Megalopolis of developing countries, MG, Belo Horizonte.

Schiaffonati F. (1) (2014), Il contesto culturale e la nascita della disciplina, in Coordinamento dei ricercatori di Tecnologia dell’Architettura del Politecnico di Milano (a cura di), “La cultura tecnologica nella scuola milanese”, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna.

•

DI Pasquale J. (2015), Scalable Modular Architecture. Dynamic housing for changing society, Jamko edizioni, Milano.

Schiaffonati F. (2) (2014), Il progetto della casa sociale, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna.

•

DI Pasquale J., Mussinelli E., Carrera A., Manfren F. (2014), Pop-up hotel Expo 2015, Temporaneità come condizione permanente, Jamko Edizioni, Milano.

Schiaffonati F., Crespi L., Mussinelli, E., Besozzi W. (1994), Didattica e progetto. Documenti e progetti del corso di Unificazione Edilizia e Prefabbricazione, Alinea Editrice, Firenze.

•

Jonathan Rose Companies, Location Efficiency and Housing Type: Boiling it Down to BTUs, March 2011.

•

Seto K. C., Güneralp B.,Hutyra L. R. (2012), Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, August 16, 2012.

•

UN-Habitat (2006) The State of the World’s Cities 2006/7, Earthscan, London.

•

UN-Habitat, Urbanization and develompment: Emergin futures, World city report 2016

•

Wallance D. (2015), Moving Parts: modular architecture in a flat world, CTBUH 2015 Conferences, New York.

•

Gaspari J., Antonini E., Boeri A., Longo D. (2013), Volumetric addictions for sustainable refurbishment of residential builidngs,Proceedings of conference “Central Europe towards Sustainable Building 2013”: Sustainable Building and Refurbishment for Next Generations, Praga.

•

Gerland P., Raffery A. E. (2014), World population stabilization unlikely this century, Science magazine.

•

Glaeser, Edward L. (2009), Green Cities, Brown Suburbs, City Journal, Winter.

•

Kieran S., Timberlake J (2004), Re-fabricating Architecture, McGraw-Hill, New York.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Global Cities Network

•

AA.VV, Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC), Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

•

Barry W. (1999), Networks in the Global Village: Life in Contemporary Communities, Boulder, CO: Wetview Press.

•

Brenner N. (1998), Global Cities, Glocal States: Global City Formation and State Territorial Restructuring in Contemporary Europe, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), pp. 1-37 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177255

•

Castells M. (2000), Toward a Sociology of the Network Society, Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 5 (Sep., 2000), pp. 693-699 Published by: American Sociological Association. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2655234 .

•

Carnoy M. (2000), Sustaining the new Economy: Work, Family and Community in the Information Age, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stable URL: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google. it/&httpsredir=1&article=2803&context=jssw

•

Sassen S. (1988), Globalization and Its Discontents: Essay on the New Mobility of People and Money, Urban Technology Journal, Yale Law Journal.

•

Sassen S. (1994), Cities in a World Economy (Sociology for a New Century Series) , (pp.114-115). SAGE Publications

•

Sassen S. (2002), Global network linked cities, Psycology press.

•

Schneider A., Woodcock C. E. (2008). Compact, Dispersed, Fragmented, Extensive? A Comparison of Urban Growth in Twenty-five Global Cities using Remotely Sensed Data. Pattern Metrics and Census Information. Urban Studies.

•

Rybczynski W. (2010), Makeshift Metropolis: Ideas About Cities, Simon & Shuster.

111

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sharing Economy

•

Belk R. (2013), You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online , Journal of Business Research. Stable URL: http://collaborativeeconomy.com/wp/ wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Belk-R.2014.You-are-what-you-can-access-Sharing-andcollaborative-consumption-online.Journal-ofBusiness-Research.pdf Botsman R., Rogers R. (2011) What’s mine is yours: how collaborative consumption is changing the way we live, Harper Collins. Stable URL: http://appli6.hec.fr/amo/Public/Files/ Docs/241_fr.pdf

•

Demary V. (2014), Competition in the Sharing Economy, Institute Der Deutschen Wirtschaft. https://www. econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/112778/1/830325093.pdf

•

Hamari J., Sjöklint M., Ukkonen A. (2015), The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Stable URL: https://people.uta. fi/~kljuham/2015-hamari_at_al-the_sharing_ economy.pdf

•

Heinrichs H. (2013), Sharing Economy: A Potential New Pathway to Sustainability, article in Gaia: Okologische Perspektiven in Natur-, Geistes- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften.

•

Hennig-Thurau T., Henning V., & Sattler, H. (2007), Consumer file sharing of motion pictures. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 1–18. h t t p s : // w w w. r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p r o f i l e / H e n r i k _ S a t t l e r /p u b l i c a t i o n / 2 2 8 6 6 0 5 0 8 _ Consumer_File_Sharing_of_Motion_Pictures/ links/0deec523411012ea8a000000/ConsumerFile-Sharing-of-Motion-Pictures.pdf

•

Jensen TE., Westenholz A. (2004), Identity in the age of new economy: life in temporary and scattered work practices, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK. https://books.google.it/s?hl=it& lr=&id=fTFmAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq= freelance+economy+scholar&ots=Xh4end7j67 &sig=f239wE2zybsAUrb5uRas9ReLH70#v=one page&q&f=false. Kaplan AM., Haenlein M. (2010), Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media, ScienceDirect. Stable URL: http://michaelhaenlein.com/

Publications/Kaplan,%20Andreas%20-%20 Users%20of%20the%20world,%20unite.pdf •

Metzgar, E., & Maruggi, A. (2009), Social media and the 2008 US presidential election, Journal of New Communications Research, 4(1), 141– 165.

•

Mora E., Pais I. (2015), Sharing Economy: non tutto è condivisione, Vita e Pensiero 3, 2015 Univ. Cattolica Milano. http://services.feem.it/ userfiles/attach/20157161155442015-06-01%20 VitaePensiero.pdf

•

Oh O., Agrawal, M., & Rao, H.R. (2013), Community intelligence and social media services: A rumor theoretic analysis of tweets during social crises. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 407–426.

•

Sundararajan A. (2016), The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of CrowdBased Capitalism, MIT press.

•

Stable URL: https://books.google.it/books?hl= it&l r=&id=2Zz2CwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7 &dq=sh aring+economy,+liquid+society&ots= sJkbPdP20e &sig=zMCKdIWyOu9BmsYjnnnKb6 4_NxQ#v=onep age&q&f=false

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

113

Social And Housing Behaviors Changes

•

AA.VV , Sapio Antonella (a cura di) (2010) , Famiglie, reti familiari e cohousing. Verso nuovi stili del vivere, Franco Angeli.

•

Albizzani E. (2012), Filiera produttiva e tecnologie per l’abitare, in: Techne n.4 Housing Sociale, Firenze University Press, pp. 16-17.

•

Barile K.S., Brandon J.C. (2004), Household Chores and Household Choices. Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscolana, Alabama, USA , 2004

Angeli, Milano. •

Di Nicola P. (2009), La famiglia in Italia: processi di de istituzionalizzazione e istanze normative, in “Famiglia o Famiglie?” Atti Forum interassociativo Rotary, 31 Gennaio 2009, Verona.

•

Elias N. (1990), La società degli individui, Il Mulino, 1990

•

Giddens A. (1995), La trasformazione dell’intimità, Sessualità, amore ed erotismo nelle società moderne, Il Mulino, Bologna.

•

Bauman Z. (2004), Amore liquido, Sulla fragilità dei legami affettivi. Laterza, Roma Bari.

•

Bauman Z. (2000), La solitudine del cittadino globale, Feltrinelli - Universale economica

Goody J. (2000), La famiglia nella storia Europea, Laterza, Roma Bari.

•

Bauman Z. (2008), Individualmente insieme. (a cura di Carmen Leccardi), Edizioni Diabasis, Parma.

Gibbs N. (2016), Automotive News Europe. Internet Article. Autonews.com, http://europe. autonews.com/article/20160609/ANE/16060982 5?template=mobile02&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

•

Beck U. (2000), I rischi della libertà, il Mulino, Bologna.

•

Laslet P., Wall R. (1972), Household and Famiily in Past Times, Cambridge University Press, 1972

•

Beck U. e Beck-Gernsheim (1996), Il normale caos dell’amore, Bollai Boringhieri, Torino.

•

Bellini O.E. (2008) Student Housing_1 Atlante ragionato della residenza universitaria contemporanea, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna

Laslet P. (1984), La famiglia e la parentela nell’Europa tradizionale, In: Wall R., Robin J., Laslett P., Forme di famiglia nella storia europea, Il Mulino, Bologna 1984.

•

Liotta S.J., Louyot F. (2016), What is co-dividuality. Exhibition at Farm Cultural Park, Favara, AG Italy.

•

Breen J., Lee D. (2017) Student Housing trend: The trasformation of co-living in college. Building design+cosntruction, Internet Article. stable url: https://www.bdcnetwork.com/blog/studenthousing-trends-transformation-co-livingcollege;

•

Liotta S.J., Imperadori M., (2018) 999 Shared House, Exhibition Triennale Milano.

•

Mc Grath J. (2015) Moving to a new city? Kasita wants to let you bring your entire tiny apartment. Internet Article. digitaltrends.com

•

stable URL: https://www.digitaltrends.com/ home/kasita-is-a-tiny-apartment-that-movesbetween-cities/

•

Monitor Deloitte, (2017), Car Sharing in Europe. Internet Article.Deloitte.com, https://www2. d e l o i t t e. c o m /c o n t e n t /d a m / D e l o i t t e /d e / Documents/consumer-industrial-products/CIPAutomotive-Car-Sharing-in-Europe.pdf

•

Noto A. (2016), Can WeWork’s risky Co-living plan avoid the mistakes of failed Campus?. Internet article. www.bizjournals.com, Stable URL: https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/ news/2016/03/15/can-weworks-risky-colivingplan-avoid-the-mistakes.html

•

Castiglioni M., Della Zuanna G. (2017), La famiglia è in crisi (falso), Laterza, Roma Bari.

•

Chalier V. (2017), Why are Millennials opting for co-living spaces. Internet Article, Yourstory. 9 nov 2017. https://yourstory.com/2017/11/why-aremillennials-opting-for-co-living-spaces/

•

Clay K. (2017) What it is really like to live in a Dorm for Adults, Internet article, stabel url: https:// www.citylab.com/life/2017/02/what-its-reallylike-to-live-in-a-dorm-for-adults/516036/

•

Di Nicola P., Stanzani S, Tronca L. (2009), Reti di prossimità e capitale sociale in Italia, Franco

114

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•

Pocar V. e Ronfani P. (2008), La famiglia e il diritto, Larerza, Roma-Bari, nuova edizione.

•

Pantaleo R. (2015), Un pisolo in giardino. Segni, sogni, simboli alla periferia dell’Abitare, Eleuthera.

•

Shafique A. (2018) Co-Living and the Common Good, RSA Royal Society of Art, Action And Research Centre, London

•

Solinas P.G. (1987), La famiglia, in: Braudel pp 193-218

•

Stepler R. (2017), Number of US adults cohabiting with a partner continues to rise especially among thise 50 and older. Internet article. Pew Research Center, 6 April 2017, http://www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2017/04 /06 /number-of-u-sadults-cohabiting-with-a-partner-continues-torise-especially-among-those-50-and-older/

•

Talkington E., Plowman D. (2016), The Rise of CoLiving: Moving Beyond the College Dorm, Internet Article. Stable URL: https://www.rclco.com/ advisory-co-living

•

Teo M. (2017), The rise of coliving. How millennials are reshaping the way we live. Internet article. JJL RealVviews, 9 June 2017, http://www.jllrealviews. com/viewpoint/the-rise-of-co-living-howmillennials-are-reshaping-the-way-we-live/

•

Torricelli M. C. (2012), Perché fare ricerca per il futuro dell’abitare, in: Techne n.4 Housing Sociale, Firenze University Press, pp. 16-17.

•

Zanatta A.L. (2008), Le nuove famiglie, Felicità e rischi delle nuove scelte di vita, Il Mulino, Bologna, nuova edizione 2008.

•

Zanatta A.L. (2010), Le nuove famiglie, Felicità e rischi delle nuove scelte di vita, Il Mulino, Bologna.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Modular Hybrid Systems

•

Bernstein, H.M., Russo, M.A., Laquidara-Carr, D. (2011), “Prefabrication and Modularization, increasing productivity in construction industry”, Small market report, McGraw-Hill construction, New York.

•

Di Pasquale, J., Innella, F., Bai, Y. (2018). “Structural Solutions for hybrid modular buildings with removable parts” (manuscript). Monash University, Melbourne.

•

Ghattas R., Gregory J., Olivetti E., Greene S. (2013), Life Cycle Assesment for Residential Buildings. A Literature Review and Gap Analysis, Concrete Sustainability Hub, MIT Massachussetts Institute of Technology.

•

Lavagna M. (2011), Life cycle assessment in ediliza: lo stato dell’arte in Italia, in “La rete italiana lca: prospettive e sviluppi del life cycle assessment in Italia”, a cura di Cappellaro F., Scalbi S., Enea, Roma.

•

Lawson, M., Ogden, R., and Goodier, C. (2014). Design in Modular Construction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1-28.

•

Liu Z, Bai Y, Gu Z, Zhong N. (2018). Intermodal transportation of modular structure units. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 7(2): 99-123.

•

Mussinelli, E., Tartaglia, A., Di Pasquale, J. (2017). “Typological and Technological innovation for the application of hybrid systems to housing construction.” Techne, 13, 287-294.

•

Schiaffonati F., Mussinelli E., Majocchi A., Tartaglia A., Riva R., Gambaro M. (2015), Tecnologia architettura e territorio, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna.

•

Sharafi P., Rashidi M., Samali B., Ronagh H., Mortazavi M. (2018). “Identification of Factors and Decision Analysis of the Level of Modualrization in Building Construction.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, January 2018.

115

116

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Picture reference list

N.B. All the pictures, schemes and drawings (including all workshop materials) have been produced by the authors, unless specified differently. Fig. 01. Research structure Fig. 02. Rents for all-inclusive co-living accommodation and same area studio apartment in New York and Washington. (source: Property Website Axiometrics) Fig. 03. The most important co-living spaces by countries (source: www.getkin.io/coliving-list) Fig. 04- amount of co-living spaces by city. (source: www.getkin.io/coliving-list) Fig. 05 basic unit, plan and interior views (source www. commonspace.com ) Fig. 06 Floor Plan Layout 1 (source www.commonspace.com) Fig. 07 Floor Plan Layout 2 (source www.commonspace.com) Fig. 08 Interior views: Common kitchen at floor, Common Chef Kitchen, Co-working space. (source www.commonspace.com ) Fig. 09 Basic unit (source: www.welive.com ) Fig. 10 Building layout (source: www.welive.com ) Fig. 11 Floor Plan Layout (source: www.welive.com ) Fig. 12 Basic Unit Technological Equipment (source: www.welive.com ) Fig. 13 Basic unit, plan and interior views (source: www.urby.com ) Fig. 14 Floors Plans layout (source: www.urby.com ) Fig. 15 Ground floor layout (source: www.urby.com ) Fig. 16. 9th floor and terrace layout (source: www.urby.com) Fig. 17. Elevation, exterior and interior views. (source: www.urby.com ) Fig. 18. Basic unit, plan and interior view (source: www. ollie.co ) Fig. 19. Modular components of basic unit. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 20. Transformability of the housing basic module. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 21. Different configurations of the housing module. (source: www.ollie.co )

Fig. 22. Assembling scheme. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 23. Building section. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 24. Building lay out. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 25. Roof top terrace (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 26. Gym, Fitness room at ground floor. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 27. Modular units types. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 28 Off Site Construction phases. (source: www.ollie.co) Fig. 29. Assembling process. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 30. Completed building. (source: www.ollie.co ) Fig. 31. Basic Units: â&#x20AC;&#x153;studioâ&#x20AC;? (1 person) and twodio (2 persons) (source: www.thecollective.com ) Fig. 32. Basic Unit interior schemes and views. (source: www.thecollective.com ) Fig. 33. Building layout and floor scheme. (source: www.thecollective.com ) Fig. 34. View From the street. (source: www. thecollective.com ) Fig.35. Chill-out lounge thecollective.com )

space. (source: www.

Fig. 36 View From the street. (source: www. thecollective.com ) Fig. 37 Chef Kitchen. (source: www.thecollective.com ) Fig. 38 View of the library. (source: www.thecollective.com) Fig. 39 washing machine lounge. (source: www. thecollective.com ) Fig. 40. Old Oak thecollective.com )

restaurants.

(source: www.

Fig. 41. Secret Garden. (source: www.thecollective.com) Fig. 42 Basic Units comparative panel Fig. 43 Basic Units comparative panel Fig. 44 Ollie and Welive basic units technological concept: the living functions are concentrated in standardized technological groups considered as plug in devices in order to optimize production processes and reduce costs. (source: www.ollie.co , www.welive.com) Fig. 45. Social structure evolution scheme from nuclear society and individualized society.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 46. Typological evolution from apartment to individual microcosms. Fig. 47. Evolution from condominium typology to living pod building Fig. 48. Living pods cluster. Typological dynamic configurability and living pods aggregability according with strength of socio-affective relations among individual users. Fig. 49. Hybrid Modular: from rigid structure to flexible organism Fig. 50. Hybrid Modular Building Scheme. Fig. 51. Traditional and Hybrid building Llfe-cycle confrontation. FIg. 52. Traditional / Hybrid Modular retrofitting lifecycle timeline confrontation. Fig. 53. Hybrid Modular Housing Construction System. Fig. 54. Hybrid Modular Building Type A: Extended Mother structure also including empty space for living pods and hosting devices to equip the living pod spaces. Fig. 55. Hybrid Modular Building Type B: Essential Mother structure hosting living pods made with flat pack empty volumetric modules equipped with living devices. Fig. 56 Housing Account Scheme Fig. 57 levels of social connections in a hybrid modular building and role of digital platform in realizing them (source: applicative workshop). Fig. 58 Plan & Define Meeting 13 03 2018 Fig. 59. Land use function options: free private residential or contracted housing services. Fig. 60. Hybrid modular production process scheme. Fig.61. Mobile Home (1929).( source: internet, The history of mobile home https://mobilehomeliving.org/the-history-of-mobilehomes/) Fig. 62. Thomas Edison in 1910s investigated the use of formwork molds that could repeatedly be used to create concrete houses. (source: www.treehugger. com) Fig. 63. Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion House (1930).

117

Factory manufactured kits, assembled on site, intended to be suitable for any site or environment and to use resources efficiently. A key design consideration of the design was ease of shipment and assembly. (source: www.archdaily.com ) Fig. 64. Lustron houses are prefabricated enameled steel houses developed in the post-World War II era United States in response to the shortage of houses for returning GIs. (Source: www.pinterest.com ) Fig. 65. Le Corbusier. Unitè de Abitation. Marsiglia 1945. (source: www.pinterest.com ) Fig. 66. Peter Cook and Michael Webb. Archigram’s Plug in City, 1964. (source: www.archdaily.com ) Fig. 67. Habitat 69 by Mosdie Safdie, Montreal 1967. (source: www.abitare.it )Fig. 68. Kisho Kurokawa. Nakagin Capsule Hotel, Tokyo 1972 (source: www. domusweb.it ) Fig. 68. Kisho Kurokawa. Nakagin Capsule Hotel, Tokyo 1972 (source: www.domusweb.it )

118

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION WORKSHOP.

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION WORKSHOP A1.1 Workshop Structure and Organization

Simultaneously with the development of the PhD research has been organized a permanent interactive workshop involving all the funding companies, to simulate a design process focusing the achievement of the performance requirements framework, and the application of the research acquisition to a real case of hybrid modular housing building unit in an urban context. Fig. 58. Plan & Define Meeting 13 03 2018

To the original PhD funding companies, Progress, Valsir, and Gewiss, also Siemens joined the workshop providing financial support for the research. All the involved companies also provided competences and staff. DOVE VIVO, a Milan based company who provide shared apartments using a business model very similar to the co-living model, also joined the workshop playing the role of the management company supposing to operate the unit. Polytechnic provided the scientific coverage and the needed competences to feed the actual design process.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

A1.2 Workshop scope

The scope of the workshop has been to simulate a complete design process of a Modular Hybrid Unit of Urban Services and Accommodations (MHUUSA) based on the meta-project result of the research, and located on a specific plot land in the city of Milan, in order to acquire the following targets: 1. 2.

4. 5.

Define a matrix of performance requirements for an urban unit of housing services. Collect and select all the technical specifications and solutions to implement in the project in order to satisfy the performance requirements in terms of technology, typology and services. Apply the matrix of performance requirements and the technical specifications to a real location on a specific plot land in the city of Milan. Exploit the local urban and building regulations in order to establish the actual volume to build and the consequent and number of potential users. Verify the business model for the specific location in order to check the financial sustainability of the operation. Elaborate a meta-project simulation implementing all the main features of the meta-project in terms typological and technological and services provided. Elaborate the informatics meta-project of the digital application to operate the building.

Considering the need to also elaborate a meta-project of digital solutions supporting the housing model proposed, Politecnico also involved its department of electronics & Information to follow and support in the workshop

119

120

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION WORKSHOP.

A1.3 Workshop participants

Here is the complete lists of participants: Politecnico di Milano

Joseph di Pasquale, PhD candidate, Dept ABC Workshop administrator. Elena Mussinelli, PhD tutor, dept ABC Andre Tartaglia, PhD supervisor, Dept ABC Gianpaolo Cugola, Dept. of Electronics&Information Roberto Mandurino, MEP engineer Diana Ranghetti, architect.

Progress (prefabrication)

Luca Brutti, CEO Gianni Sperandio, consultant

Valsir (plumbing)

Nicola Zanca, R&D

Gewiss (electric equipment)

Giovanni Lomboni, R&D Corrado Vigani

Siemens (digital solutions)

Vito Allegretti, business development Domenico Falbo, R&D

Dove Vivo (co-living player)

Sara Taddei, marketing manager Roberta Cazzaniga, technical assistance.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

A1.4 Workshop methodology

After an introductive phase in which the phd research has progressively shared the contents and the acquisitions of the scientific speculation, the workshop has then followed the APQP (Advanced Productivity Quality Planning) project management framework process: Phase

Meetings

0 - PHD CONTENTS SHARING (2015-16) 24 11 2015 04 12 2015 25 02 2016 09 05 2016

20 07 2016

03 11 2016

1 – PREPLANNING

02 02 2018

2 - PLAN AND DEFINE

13 03 2018

3 - PRODUCT DESIGN specifications.

04 05 2018

4 - PROCESS DESIGN

10 05 2018 04 06 2018 27 06 2018

5 – VALIDATION

19 07 2018

6 – FEEDBACK AND CORRECTIVES

12 2018

Topic Research target introduction. Co-funding companies introduction Reference scenario of the research. Industrialization and modularization. Problems and opportunities Housing typology and technology: basic requirements. Life Cycle approach to construction process and product. Pilot project standards and regulations. Matrix of performance requirements. Technical Mother structure. Digital solutions. Technologies and suppliers. Business plan, expected costs and revenues. Project presentation.

Following the summary briefs, the main contents and material have been shared in the meetings and “in-progress” were made available in a common data room. The meetings have been conceived as interacting moments to achieve the following methodological targets:

121

122

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION WORKSHOP.

• • • •

Summarize and present the work done before the meeting by all the participants. Introduce the arguments to discuss in the meeting and the objectives to achieve. Discuss and comment on the meeting topics. Define and organize the activities of the different participants involved to develop before the next meeting.

The workshop administrator provided a complete report of the meeting to all the participants summarizing all the contents discussed, decisions taken, and appointed tasks. PREPLANNING Before the preplanning meeting, all the specific regulations and bindings related to the plot area selected for the experimental application, have been collected and organized. The land plot was located in Milan urban area, nearby the Politecnico di Milano university district “città studi”, in via San Faustino 18. The land plot owner had been contacted and informed about the target, the scientific purposes of the workshop and its methodology. An onsite survey had been carried out to verify the environmental status of the land in order to define which level of works had to be done to enable the area to construction. All the urban regulations and limits were defined and organized. All the materials collected were uploaded in the data room two weeks before the preplanning meeting in order to be available for the workshop participants. In the preplanning meeting the workshop methodology was introduced, its structure, the participant’s roles, timetable and its expected results. The hybrid building megaproject features resulting from result from the PhD research was introduced to the participants. Moreover the specific plot of land on which the megaproject had to be applied was introduced. In the second part of the meeting the next step activities to achieve the “plan & define” objective of the workshop was discussed: the requirements and performance matrix. PLAN AND DEFINE The workflow of the plan and define phase : 1.

Elaborate the requirements/performance matrix based on the need of the player involved in the lifecycle of the building: user, operator, and property ownership.

2. Extend the matrix organizing the typological features of hybrid building metaproject to accord with the requirements/performances matrix structure. 3. Discuss and define with the partner industries the proper technological

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

solutions and insert them in the matrix according to their relations with requirements, performance and typological features. 4. Complete the matrix defining and adding with the operator and the provider of digital solution (Siemens) the set of services that the digital platform supposes to provide to users and operator. In the first step Dove Vivo was asked to play the role of housing service provider figuring out and listing the requirements of its target clients. The information obtained was organized into a matrix that could structure the set of requirements from the point of view of the subject involved in the process: user, operator, and property ownership. The information gathered from Dove Vivo was integrated and completed in accordance with the analysis of co-living model elaborated in the thesis. The resulting requirements/performances matrix emphasized the following main features: •

The trend of users’ requirements was to have all the services and performances provided inside it’s own living microcosm, on which full and independent control is greatly required.

•

The operator aims for the maximum efficiency of the management especially for what concerns control and savings of energy consumption, and for the reduction of maintenance intervention.

•

There are a wide range of extra services that the provider could convey to the user directly or by outsourcing the supply of goods and services perceived as “integrated” with the housing experience.

123

124

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION WORKSHOP.

REQUIREMENTS / PERFORMANCE MATRIX USER

OPERATOR

INDIVIDUAL MICORCOSM FULL HOUSING SERVICES Having +3:8an individual microcosm with all the domestic Provide individual microcosms to users to convey housing functions.INDIVIDUAL MICORCOSM services. Having an individual microcosm with all the domestic functions.

PROPERTY TYPOLOGICAL RECONFIGURABILITY Ability to configure the typological structure over time without binding to a single housing model.

SHARE HOUSING EXPERIENCE Sharing of the housing experience with the neighborhood community (users of the plan cluster). COMMUNITY Membership in a community (other building users) to share experiences, discuss, collaborate, participate in activities, use common services. ACCESSES CONTROL Manage access to the microcosm and keep your living spaces safe.

ACCESSES MONITORING Monitor who has access to the building, the cluster and the pod. Allow access to maintenance and cleaning staff.

INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OF THE MICROCOSM CLIMAT Regualte and program the climate of the microcosm independently.

CENTRALIZED TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Centralize the HVAC systems, unify the connection pods and have energy self-‐peroduction facilities to reduce operating costs.

CUSTOMIZATION AND CONTROL OF OWN MICROCOSM Customization of the microcosm, creating the sensation of feeling at home, and full control of all the equipment and systems in it.

LOWER OPERATING COSTS Stimulate virtuous users behaviors to reduce operating costs, in order to lower the consumption costs below the business plan averaged estimates, and create extra revenues.

LIVE IN A SAFE AND EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENT Living in a safe and efficient environment, with reliable technological equipment installedm and avoiding disruptions.

LESS MANTEINANCE INTERVENTIONS Program, prevent, reduce and simplify maintenance operations.

FEELING A SUSTAINABLE LIFESTILE Living in an environment that induces active lifestyles, open to sociability, that enhance virtuous and collective living conditions, preserving resources and the environment.

BUILDING LIFE CYCLE HEALTH Preserve the efficiency and durability of the building and to prolong its life cycle.

ENERGETICAL EFFICIENCY Efficiency of the energy performance of the asset, to avoid obsolescence and increase its value.

FITNESS IN THE MICROCOSM Do physical activity in the microcosm with specific equipment on demand. DISCOUNTED BIKE-‐CAR SHARING SERVICES Premium access to mobility services (rent / share bicycle, motorbike, car), integrated with housing experience. ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES Premium access to entertainment services (g.a. Netflix, Sky, etc), integrated with housing experience. DELIVERY SERVICES Premium access to delivery services integrated with hosuing experience.

PROVIDE EXTRA SERVICES Provide additional outsourced paid services to increase profit in the life cycle (profit) by adding revenue items.

BASIC HOUSE GOODS Easy supply and delivery of house basic goods (water, toilet paper, toothpaste etc.) INDIVIDUAL INTERNET CONNECTION CAPACITY Have an individual high-‐speed internet connection with guaranteed capacity and not effected by other users activities. CLEANNESS Living in a clean environment that promotes and reward cluster communities for the maintenance of order and hygiene in common areas.

LOWER BUILDING OBSOLESCENCE Reduce the obsolescence of spaces and equipment in order to reduce maintenance and cleaning costs, deriving from a lack of care by users.

PRESERVE PROPERTY VALUE Preserve the value of the property

FIXED FEE Pay a lump-‐sum rental fee and basic utilities, so as to simplify the living experience.

MANAGMNET ECONOMY OF SCALE Optimize the rent of space, maximizing the number of users and creating a scale economy deriving from the management of multiple properties.

GUARDANTEED RETURN OF INV$ESTMENT Reduction of the management of utilities, tenants, and maintenance.

24/7 HOUSING ACCOUNT MANAGE Check with your smartphone your housing account, the status of payments, receive alerts in real time for reminders for deadlines. Have an online assistant 24/7 for communications, information, reporting of failures, requests etc.

MONITORING PAYMENTS AND ON LINE CONSTUMER CARE Ensure relations with users and check the financial balance in real time.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

typology was satisfying. Afterward the matrix was discussed with the partner industries to establish a series of technological solutions and specifications that could fulfill both the requirements / performance then the typological features present in the matrix. The last step was to add all the possible services features and operations to complete the housing experience of the users and at the same time to accomplish the monitoring and managing requirements of the operator. This part was the base for the digital solution meta-project to be developed. As a result a complex matrix containing requirements / performance / specifications (typological, technological and services), was defined and shared with the team in order to become the base for the following phase of product and process design. PRODUCT DESIGN The workflow of product design phase: 1.

Based on the pre planning constraints and urban regulations, define the physical features of the building volume: maximum envelope dimensions, main orientations and accesses.

2. According with the urban regulation and possible agreements with municipality, define land use destinations for the building compatible with the housing services features consistent with the research framework. 3. Analysis and selection of business plan options in accordance with the possible building and use alternatives. 4. Design development of the selected option in accordance with the hybrid modular meta project features. 5. Design development of digital application user interface concept, based on the services features described in the requirements / performance / specifications matrix. In accordance with different interpretations of urban regulations two options for the building volume were developed: one was dimensioned according to the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) available: 0,35 mq/mq. This allowed a maximum GFA (Gross Floor Area) of 300 m2, to be developed in a two storey building for 12 living pods. The second conceived the entire building as a â&#x20AC;&#x153;housing serviceâ&#x20AC;? contracted with the municipality for special categories of users, basically students, young

125

126

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION WORKSHOP.

professionals and young couples. The second option was considered to be more consistent with the habitation model that the modular building aims to interpret. In this case the building could exceed the limits of FAR 0,35 to reach the maximum volume envelope obtained by intersections of all the distances and construction limitations given by the building regulation (regolamento edilizio). This option allowed the building to have six storeys and host 39 living pods. Due to the contracted service agreements, part of the pods have to be placed on the market with certain limits in renting fees. These limitations were taken into account when elaborating the business plan. In accordance with the market, the management operator (Dove Vivo) set the rate for a bed in a single or double pod as: 580 €/month and 420 €/month, and the same rates for contracted services: 680 €/month and 430€/month. From this evaluation, it appeared evident that the bed in a shared double pod could be the most lucrative solution as the market and contracted rates are the same. However the operator opted for all single pods anyway because the more users with the double pods option made the management costs too heavy compared to the relatively small number of pods. Therefore the composition of the

Fig. 59. Land use function options: free private residential or contracted housing services.

SLP libera ( 0,35)– pod abitativi residenziali

QUANTITA’

SLP servizi abitativi integrati convenzionati pod abitativi SLP S ervizi abitativi integrati convenzionati spazi comuni in Outsourcing

Area Lotto SLP Esistente SLP Libera edificabile ( 0,35)

IPOTESI A – EDILIZIA LIBERA 12 POD

1.064 mq 225 m q 370 m q

IPOTESI B – SERVIZI ABITATIVI INTEGRATI CONV. + EDILIZIA LIBERA 39 POD

366 mq -‐ SLP libera 12 pod abitativi residenziali + hot spot

370 mq -‐ SLP libera 12 pod abitativi residenziali + hot spot

192 mq -‐ interrato

810 mq -‐ SLP convenzionata 27 pod abitativi individuali + hot spot 300 mq -‐ SLP convenzionata Spazi comuni in outsourcing Reception + Coffice + Garden 1.480 mq -‐ SLP libera+ SLP convenzionata 287 mq -‐ interrato

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

pods was defined in consideration of 27 contracted single pods + 12 free market single pods as they corresponded to the 0,35 m2 available of GFA according with the available FAR. Afterwards the building was placed on the plot following the morphologic indication of the building regulation: part of the building has been placed in alignment with the street border by at least 50% of its length, in order to consolidate the street built curtain. The building volume was developed within the land plot. Common functions also open to the public were placed on the ground floor and on the five upward floors of all the clusters of living pods . Access for pedestrians, to a dedicated entrance to access the clusters has been designed considering both the access for the public to the ground floor functions from the street level and for the building users. The living pod was separated in a composition of living devices: main living device, access device and envelope device. Avery one of these devices has been defined in terms of performance, provided dimensions and components all integrated with the main dimension of the building. This was done by considering the possibility to insert and extract all the devices from the building in every moment of its life cycle. From the technological point of view, specific meetings were dedicated to MEP design and to APP User interface design. The technological systems were divided into mother structure systems and living pod systems. The design in this phase, was concentrated on the mother structure systems following the specifications’ matrix elaborated in the previous phase – “planning and define”. In the same way, the MEP systems for a living pod designed by taking into consideration the connection point between mother structure and living pod systems as a group of fast plug-in-plug-out connectors. The interface design also followed the services columns in the specifications matrix. The dashboard was divided into three sections: the housometer (housing behavioral indicator), the services, and the management part. The main idea was to have a tool that could give to the user a possible sustainability measure of his or her housing behavior, only in terms of energy and resources consumption. This is consistent with the main background feature of sharing economy. The users appreciate the possibility (not the obligation) of being aware of their own sustainable behavior and lifestyle. This can be done by integrating and elaborating information and IOT data coming from the living devices. Therefore, at the same time, such a platform could give a very powerful tool to the management operator in the control of the operational costs and in having a closer, more direct contact with users. In the win-win perspective, the application should activate the

127

128

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION WORKSHOP.

principle of “promote by rewarding”, in other words the savings in terms of lower operational costs should be shared with the users giving them the opportunity to accumulate “credits” to buy services: this could be done by adopting a virtual coin for all the exchanges within the housing services and community. In the workshop this virtual coin was named HOUSECOIN, with an advantage gained by the conversion of virtual behaviors to HOUSECOIN, adding them to a virtual wallet. Other HOUSECOIN could be purchased directly and used to pay the subscription fee, to buy goods and services. Potentially HOUSECOIN could also represent gained sharing time among users for specific services provided directly between them (baby sitting, elderly assistance, etc.) or by users to the same operator (building administration, building care, gardening, etc). Despite the fact that some of these possibilities woud be out of the business range of the management operator who participated in the workshop (DOVE VIVO), they give a very good idea of the possible development of the concept as it relates to a digital application that links people with their physical and living location. The recent flourishing of applications (nextdoor, my neighbors, etc.) that are trying to interpret the same idea confirm the wide potential of this approach. The operator in defining specific agreements with other partners could provide other available services: mobility services (branded bike and car sharing services), entertainment services (TV on demand, music, etc.), delivery services (basic domestic goods delivery, shopping, etc). The third section of the digital interface was dedicated to the management of the personal living services subscription. This refers to of course the physical control of the individual microcosm (climate, lighting, personalization, accesses etc), the administration and connection with the housing service operator, and also the social relations with other users in the cluster, in the building and the connection with the neighborhood users. PROCESS DESIGN The workflow of the process design phase was the following: 1.

Structuring the construction process and the supply chain of the building according with the technological approach of the hybrid modular metaproject.

2. Verifying with the partner industries the feasibility of the supply features as structured, in relation to their production and contract management capacities.

129

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

3. Definition and preparations of the technical specification and documents required to estimate the construction costs by the partner industries. 4. Definition and preparation of the digital application meta project based on the user interface concept. The entire production process of the building was reorganized in accordance with the mother structure-living components approach. In considerion of the on-site off-site paradigm, the entire supply chain was concentrated in two main suppliers: the mother structure supplier and the living devices supplier. These two main contractor would manage a sub-structure of suppliers in order to provide a complete service and product. The interface standard connecting the mother structure and living devices is the key element defined in order to make the supply chain work. In the workshop, the role of the two main contractors was played by Progress for the mother structure and Siemens for the living devices. Progress and Gewiss played the role as supplier for both the main contractor in order to provide MEP systems and to ensure the compatibility of the standards of connection. Other sub-suppliers have been individuated, to provide the living devices off site construction.

Fig. 60. Hybrid modular production process scheme.

MOTHER STRUCTURE Supplier 1

LIVING DEVICES Supplier 2 HousApp

ENVELOPE DEVICES Supplier 3

LAND OWNER XXXXXXXX

MOTHER STRUCTURE OWNER

HOUSING SERVICES PROVIDER

130

ANNEX 1: EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION WORKSHOP.

VALIDATION The workflow of the validation phase was the following: 1.

Presentation and discussion of product and process design phases results with the workshop participants.

2. Analysis, definition and validation of construction costs by the partner industries. 3. Verification and validation of the business plan. 4. Updated release of the project implementing the results of validation phase. In accordance with this production process approach, the two main contractor gave a detailed figure of costs and construction drawings for the products and services provided. These figures were integrated into the business plan to define construction costs. The main subject considered in the business plan, were the following: land owner, mother structure owner, and management operator. The costs for the construction were distributed consequentially: land preparation costs (land owner), mother structure costs (mother structure owner), living devices costs (management operator). A main target in structuring the business plan was to find a way to make evident two aspects of the innovation: the savings caused both by the building technological efficiency and the users behavioral improvements, and the extra services available thanks to the digital platform integrated with users and the management operator. The management operator (Dove Vivo) was asked to make evident the savings achieved, with reference to the average energy cost that would normally be considered in their business plan figures. Once this value was defined, all the savings had to be considered as a â&#x20AC;&#x153;revenueâ&#x20AC;? that goes to the subject who has paid the costs of the technological equipment: the owner, or the management operator itself, or in the event, both. Also the extra expenses incurred by the implementation of an integrated digital platform were highlighted in the business plan and given to the management operator considering that the costs for the digital systems and the living devices were to be supported by the management operator itself.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

All the data collected by the partner companies was integrated and a final validated version of the project released. In the following pages, all the slides elaborated to proceed in the workshop were collected. They are a collection of all the images, drawings schemes and elaborations produced by all the participants.

131

132

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS Workshop structure

Joseph di Pasquale, PhD candidate, Politecnico di Milano, ABC dept 31° cycle. Innovative construction systems for High Performance Buildings. Tutor prof Elena Mussinelli, Supervisor prof Andrea Tartaglia. Hybrid Systems for Modular Industrialized architecture Thesis title:

Hybrid Modular Architecture for emerging Housing behaviors.

Workshop Partner:

Milan 02 02 2018 – 07 19 2018 PhD Funding

Experimental Workshop Jan-‐Apr 2018

STRUTTURA URBANA DI SERVIZI ABITATIVI INTEGRATI

Politecnico di Milano – Monash University Scientific Board: prof Elena Mussinelli ,prof Andrea Tartaglia Research coordination: Joseph di Pasquale Support: Diana Ranghetti, Roberto Mandurino Scope: Experimental application of Hybrid Modular System for new housing behaviors. FUNDING COMPANIES Valsir – Gewiss – Progress Industrial Production Scope: share research contents. Orient product development according with future market trends. PARTNERS: Dove Vivo House as a Service Player. Scope: Elaborate the framework of requirements and technologies for a pilot house project featured on their target clients.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

133

Experimental Workshop Jan-‐Apr 2018

STRUTTURA URBANA DI SERVIZI ABITATIVI INTEGRATI APQP PROJECT MANAGMENT PLAN (Advanced Product Quality Planning)

Obiettivo: METAPROGETTO: QUADRO ESIGENZIALE, PRESTAZIONALE E TECNOLOGICO 0. Pre-‐ Planning 2018.02.02

1. Plan & Define 2018.03.13

2. Product Design 2018.05.04

3. Process Design

2018.07.19

4. Validation 2018.07.19

5. Feedback and correctives September 2018

Experimental Workshop Jan-‐Apr 2018

STRUTTURA URBANA DI SERVIZI ABITATIVI INTEGRATI

Timetable

PLAN & DEFINE

PRE PLANING Requirements Performances framework

USER APP design

FEB

MAR

DESIGN SPECIFICATION

meta-‐project requirements. APR

MAY

product

validation

process

feedback correction

JUN JUL

Melbourne 02.02.2018 PREPLANING

13.03.2018 PLAN & DEFINE

04.05.2018 PRODUCT D ESIGN

27.06.2018 PROCESS D ESIGN

19.07.2018 VALIDATION

134

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Plan and define Requirements-Performances MATRIX • • • •

ESIGENZA UTENTE

HousApp Function and Interface Concept Housing Account: Hardware/Software Living Pod Functions Living Pod Technological Equipment: Living Device Envelope Cell

ESIGENZA GESTORE

ESIGENZA PROPRIETA'

AMBITO

Struttura Madre

Disponibilità di un microcosmo individuale con tutte le funzionalità domestiche e possibilità di personalizzazione individuale.

Possibilità di istallazione di nuove unità bagno in breve tempo con il minor costo di intervento possibile

Pod Abitativo

Struttura Madre

Condivisione di esperienze con utenti del cluster abitativo

Pod Abitativo

Ridurre costi di manutenzione

Predisposizione di uno spazio per la condivisione. Funzioni: Condivisione (Sala comune con divani e Spazio di c.a 20mq poltrone), Studio (Tavolo/i con attacchi per pc ‐ prese/usb), Mangiare (Tavolo dimensionato secondo il numero degli utenti), Cucinare in

Piano terra: Esercizio coworking). Copertur etc. Palestra, lavande

Struttura Madre

Accesso con chiave elettronica a più livelli di sicurezza (Edificio ‐ Appartamento ‐ Stanza)

spazi configurati con a a individuale.

Pod Abitativo

Accesso con chiave elettronica a più livelli di sicurezza (Edificio ‐ Appartamento ‐ Stanza)

spazi configurati con a a individuale.

Struttura Madre

Vivere in un ambinete pulito, senza dover provvedere automomanete alla pulizia degli ambineti

Predisposizione di uno spazio individuale. Funzioni utente: Dormire (letto a due piazze /divano letto) Sanitaria (doccia,water lavandino) Cucinare (postazione cooking) Lavare (lavtrice/lavastoviglie) Spazio individuale ind Contenere (giardaroba, dispensa, etc) Appoggiare (piano di appoggio) Clima (riscaldamento raffrescamento) Energia (potenza). Illuminazione Pod Connessione (wi‐fi)

Predisposizione nell'edificio di spazi per attivita ludiche, ricreative, attività commerciali

Pod Abitativo

Monitorare il profilo di consumo di ogni utente e del cluster

Predisposizione negli spazi comuni delle attrezzature per le sole funzioni domestiche non // presenti nel pod. Punto di connessione plug in per i pod abitativi (microcosmi).

Mantenere sicuri i propri spazi dell'abitare.

Poter regolare il clima degli spazi comuni e individuali

Struttura Madre

Condivisione di esperienze con comunità di vicinato

PRESTAZIONE

Programmazione del clima degli ambienti comuni secondo livelli minimi di confort, nell'ottica di // mantenere una buona efficienza energetica.

Pod Abitativo

Programmazione del clima degli spazi individuali secondo livelli minimi di confort, nell'ottica di mantenere una buona efficienza energetica. Possibilità di regolare il clima tramite un'app personale, anche a distanza.

Struttura Madre

Servizio di pulizia degli spazi comuni settimanale da parte di un'impersa di pulizie. L'impresa possederà una carta magnetica (chiave) per accedere ai diversi spazi

Pod Abitativo

Servizio di pulizia degli spazi comuni settimanale da parte di un'impersa di pulizie. L'impresa possederà una carta magnetica (chiave) per accedere al pod.

Preservare il bene di proprietà

ONE

o individuale. Funzioni piazze /divano letto) dino) ) Spazio individuale indipendente di c.a 15‐20mq

o per la condivisione. comune con divani e Spazio di c.a 20mq on attacchi per pc ‐ o dimensionato ti), Cucinare in

di spazi per attivita mmerciali

TECNOLOGIA

TIPOLOGIA

omuni delle oni domestiche non // nnessione plug in per

nsa, etc) o) camento) one

Impiantistica Elettrica Connettore multipurpose e sistemi

Linving device modulare standardizzato. Pod Impiantistica Elettrica Unico per attrezzature tecnologiche e funzioni e sistemi abitative.

Servizi on‐demand: richiesta di arredo extra, personalizzazione dello spazio ( es.proiezioni di immagni, dell'ora...)

Attacchi luce, corrente, usb. Apparecchi Impiantistica Elettrica smart/domotici (controllo luce, musica, clima, e sistemi eventuali sistemi di allarme..)

Chat di piano per discussione di problematiche e organizzazione eventi di piano.

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

Piano terra: Esercizio commerciale (caffè, coffice, Impiantistica Elettrica coworking). Copertura praticabile: solarium, orto, Allacciamento agli impianti e sistemi etc. Palestra, lavanderia, sale studio‐ricreative

SERVIZIO

Hub virtuale dell'immobile per discussione di problematiche comuni e organizzazione eventi

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

ca a più livelli di mento ‐ Stanza)

spazi configurati con accessi "scalabili" da urbano Impiantistica Elettrica Sistema di lettura carte magnetiche. Carte a individuale. e sistemi magnetiche riconfigurabili.

ca a più livelli di mento ‐ Stanza)

spazi configurati con accessi "scalabili" da urbano Impiantistica Elettrica Sistema di lettura carte magnetiche. Carte a individuale. e sistemi magnetiche riconfigurabili.

Impiantistica Elettrica Sensori per il controllo delle utenze e sistemi

app per il monitoraggio delle utenze da parte degli utenti e del gestore. (vantaggi per gli utenti del cluster qualora rimanessero sotto una soglia prestabilita di utilizzo dell'energia)

Impiantistica Elettrica Sensori per il controllo delle utenze e sistemi

app per il monitoraggio delle utenze da parte dell'utente e del gestore. L'app permette all'utente di accedere a servizi on demand qualora quest'ultimo rimanga al di sotto una soglia prestabilita di utilizzo dell'energia

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

Calendario del servizio di pulizie

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

egli ambienti comuni ort, nell'ottica di // nza energetica.

egli spazi individuali ort, nell'ottica di nza energetica. tramite un'app

comuni settimanale zie. L'impresa ca (chiave) per

135

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Struttura Madre

Poter regolare il clima degli spazi comuni e individuali

136

Monitorare il profilo di consumo di ogni utente e ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS del cluster

Vivere in un ambinete pulito, senza dover provvedere automomanete alla pulizia degli ambineti

Ridurre costi di manutenzione

Possibilità di connettersi ad uno slot individuale garantito di internet ad alta velocità.

Gestione unifica degli abbonamenti internet (contratto con un'unica compagnia telefonica). Facilitare la gestione degli abbonamenti e creare

Programmazione del clima degli ambienti comuni secondo livelli minimi di confort, nell'ottica di // mantenere una buona efficienza energetica.

Pod Abitativo

Struttura Madre

Servizio di pulizia degli spazi comuni settimanale da parte di un'impersa di pulizie. L'impresa possederà una carta magnetica (chiave) per accedere ai diversi spazi

Preservare il bene di proprietà Pod Abitativo

Struttura Madre

Pod Abitativo

Struttura Madre

Servizio di pulizia degli spazi comuni settimanale da parte di un'impersa di pulizie. L'impresa // possederà una carta magnetica (chiave) per accedere al pod. Istallazione da parte del gestore di un modem. Apertura di un nuovo contratto con la compagnia // telefonica (un'unica compagnia per i diversi appartamenti in gestione) Il singolo utente dispone della chiave di accesso per la connessione allo slot di piano.

Accessori GYM on demand per spazi comuni

Accessori GYM on demand per spazi individuali

Fare attivita fisica nell'ambinete domestico Pod Abitativo

Sgravio della gestione Sgravio della gestione Guadagno derivante dalla delle utenze e delle opere delle utenze e delle opere gestione di manutenzione di manutenzione

Struttura Madre

Pod Abitativo

Assicurarsi che gli utenti Accessibilità a servizi di mantengano un mobilità (affitto/sharing comportamento ottimale bicicletta,moto,auto) di utilizzo delle utenze

Struttura Madre

Assicurarsi che gli utenti Accessibilità a contenuti mantengano un di intrattenimento on comportamento ottimale demand di utilizzo delle utenze

Struttura Madre

Assicurarsi che gli utenti mantengano un comportamento ottimale di utilizzo delle utenze

Struttura Madre

Accessibilità a servizi di food delivery

Pod Abitativo

Assicurarsi che gli utenti Accessibilità a servizio di mantengano un Food shopping comportamento ottimale di utilizzo delle utenze

Struttura Madre

Gestire i pagamenti: Verifica dello stato dei Assicurarsi che gli utenti pagamenti, reminder per paghino puntualmente il effettuare il pagamento, canone possibilità di pagare in modo facile e veloce

Struttura Madre

Vivere in un ambiente sicuro ed efficiente, dal punto di vista delle apparecchiature tecnologiche istallate (evitare perdite di gas, situazioni di

Pod Abitativo

Canone All Inclusive per l'utente (omnicomprensivo e senza obbligo di residenza o // di domicilio)

Possibilità di attingere a servizi di mobilità direttamente da app. Servizio fornito come opzione extra a pagamento o come premio per comportamento virtuoso.

Spazio a piano terra p auto dedicate

Accesso dal proprio pc a servizi di intrattenimento( // sky, netflix, etc.)

Servizio opzionale di cui l'utente può usufruire. Servizio fornito come opzione extra a pagamento // o come premio Storage per spesa base. “Delivery boxes” che vengono sempre rifornitii tutte le vote che vengono svuotati dgli utenti. Predisposizione nel cluster di piano di un "delivery box" per ogni utente

L’utente definisce quali prodotti base intende che // siano sempre garantiti negli appositi.

Pod Abitativo

L'utente verifica che i suoi pagamenti siano andati a buon fine. Riceve un reminder per il pagamento // del canone (giorno 1‐5 del mese). Paga il canonone da un'app dedicata, connessa al proprio home banking.

Struttura Madre

Utenti: segnalazione immediata dei guasti al gestore. Gestore: Verifica dello status di impianti e // attrezzature da remoto.

Minimizzare gli interventi Preservare il bene di di manutenzione proprietà Pod Abitativo

Utente: segnalazione immediata dei guasti al gestore. Gestore: Verifica dello status di impianti e //

egli ambienti comuni ort, nell'ottica di // nza energetica.

egli spazi individuali ort, nell'ottica di nza energetica. tramite un'app

Impiantistica Elettrica Sensori per il controllo delle utenze e sistemi

app per il monitoraggio delle utenze da parte degli utenti e del gestore. (vantaggi per gli utenti del cluster qualora rimanessero sotto una soglia prestabilita di utilizzo dell'energia)

137

app per il monitoraggio delle utenze da parte HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE dell'utente e del gestore. L'app permette all'utente di accedere a servizi on demand qualora quest'ultimo rimanga al di sotto una soglia prestabilita di utilizzo dell'energia

Impiantistica Elettrica Sensori per il controllo delle utenze e sistemi

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

Calendario del servizio di pulizie

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

ore di un modem. to con la compagnia // nia per i diversi

Impiantistica Elettrica Istallazione di un modem ad alta velocità e sistemi

Gestore: Monitoraggio consumi internet. (Utente: monitoraggio consumi internet)

a chiave di accesso i piano.

Impiantistica Elettrica Istallazione di un modem ad alta velocità e sistemi

er spazi comuni

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

Richiedere la fornitura di attrezzi sportivi negli spazi comuni, in accordo con gli altri utenti (servizio a pagamento)

er spazi individuali

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

Richiedere la fornitura di attrezzi sportivi nel pod abitativoi (servizio a pagamento)

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

Monitorare stato dei pagamenti (per il gestore e per l'utente)

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

Spazio a piano terra per servizio sharing di bici e auto dedicate

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

App dedicata per gestire i servizi di sharing

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

App per la gestione del profilo utente e dunque dei servizi on demand

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

App per la gestione del profilo utente e dunque dei servizi on demand

Impiantistica Elettrica Sensori per il controllo "delivery box" e sistemi

App di gestione dove l’utente definisce quanti box vuole usare e con quali beni vuole che siano sempre riforniti. Tutte le volte che ne vuota completamente uno un sensore avverte il gestore che il box è vuoto in modo che si possa provvedere subito a rifornirlo.

otti base intende che // appositi.

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

App gestione stato dei pagamenti

comuni settimanale zie. L'impresa ca (chiave) per

nte bbligo di residenza o //

zi di mobilità o fornito come come premio per

izi di intrattenimento(

nte può usufruire. e extra a pagamento //

ivery boxes” che te le vote che Predisposizione nel ry box" per ogni

gamenti siano andati der per il pagamento // ese). Paga il a, connessa al proprio

ata dei guasti al lo status di impianti e //

sistemi e apparecchiature di facile gestione e Impiantistica Elettrica sicure per l'utilizzo. (Aggiungere accorgimenti per // e sistemi una buona prassi di progettazione di un ambiente sicuro). Sistemi di gestine da remoto.

sistemi e apparecchiature di facile gestione e App per la segnalazione dei guasti e del Impiantistica Elettrica sicure per l'utilizzo. (Aggiungere accorgimenti per manfunzionamento delle apparecchiature una buona prassi di progettazione di un ambiente e sistemi

Gestire i pagamenti: Verifica dello stato dei Assicurarsi che gli utenti pagamenti, reminder per paghino puntualmente il effettuare il pagamento, canoneANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS possibilità di pagare in modo facile e veloce

138

Vivere in un ambiente sicuro ed efficiente, dal punto di vista delle apparecchiature tecnologiche istallate (evitare perdite di gas, situazioni di sovratensione, etc..)

Struttura Madre

Pod Abitativo

Struttura Madre

Utenti: segnalazione immediata dei guasti al gestore. Gestore: Verifica dello status di impianti e // attrezzature da remoto.

Pod Abitativo

Utente: segnalazione immediata dei guasti al gestore. Gestore: Verifica dello status di impianti e // attrezzature da remoto.

Struttura Madre

Impianto centralizzato collegato ai cluster tramite connettore multifunzione (acqua, scarico, aria, // etc)

Minimizzare gli interventi Preservare il bene di di manutenzione proprietà

Generare economia di scala nella gestione delle utenze Pod Abitativo

Struttura Madre

Pod Abitativo

Abbattere i costi delle utenze

Monitorare il comportamento "idraulico" per singolo utente

Struttura Madre

Predisposizione di sensori per il controllo delle utenze

Pod Abitativo

Predisposizione di sensori per il controllo delle utenze

Facilitare l'accesso agli impianti in caso di intervento fisico di manutenzione

Struttura Madre

Pod Abitativo

Struttura Madre

Pod Abitativo

Possibilità di riconfigurare l'assetto tipologico dell' appartamento nel tempo

gamenti siano andati der per il pagamento // ese). Paga il a, connessa al proprio

ata dei guasti al lo status di impianti e //

ato ai cluster tramite qua, scarico, aria, //

r il controllo delle

e sistemi

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

App gestione stato dei pagamenti

139

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

Impiantistica Elettrica sensori e sistemi

Impiantistica Elettrica // e sistemi

140

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

App User interface concept design

Immediate digital integrability of the housing component. The living pod, and in particular the element called living device, integrates the control and detection systems of the environmental conditions of the individual living space, allowing the integration of these systems in the broader control system of the building, allowing the immediate digital integrability of the housing component inside the building. In combination with an appropriate software platform, this allows to offer the user, even as part of a mass-produced housing component, a complete set of services (accessible through individual devices such as their smartphone) for personalization, control and the management of oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own living space. The set of these services has as its primary objective to give effective awareness to the user of its energy profile, allow a fine control of the equipment and make effective and effectively measurable over time the virtuous synergies between individual living behavior and technological performance performing for the entire building. Furthermore, the integration of socialization and communication services within the same software platform that supports the control of living space, makes it possible to extend the benefits deriving from virtuous individual behavior to the community formed by the inhabitants of the cluster and the building. contributing to improve and optimize the performance of the entire building and the savings (in terms of energy but not only) that follows. Finally, the identity between the individual user and the housing component typical of the modular hybrid approach, as well as the hardware standardization, but above all software, in the detection and control systems, allows to memorize the requirements of the software platform mentioned above. user for all aspects concerning the living environment, allowing the â&#x20AC;&#x153;portability of the housing accountâ&#x20AC;?, ie the immediate personalization of a new living environment if the user moves from one parent to another with the same characteristics placed perhaps in a city or in a different country.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

HOUsing Services Â APP design HOUSAPP

141

142

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

143

HOUsing Services APP design HOUSAPP EXTRA HOUSING SERVICES On Demand/Bonus

HOUSING BEHAVIOURS DASHBOARD HouseCoin Wallet Rewarded Services Status BASIC HOUSING SERVICES Preferences and Control P anel

HOUsing Services APP design HOUSAPP

IOT HOUsing Services APP design datas HOUSAPP

144

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

HOUsing Services APP design HOUSAPP

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

145

146

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Product design: hybrid modular architecture HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE Common Amenities Roof top -‐ Sport Living Clusters: Living Pods + Hot Spot Spaces

Housing Services Provider

Living Devices + I nvolucre Cells

Mother Structure

Proprietà

Main Structure + Technolgical Pods

Outsourcing Retail & Services

Coffice Laudry Fitness Co-‐Working

Digital Outdoor Area

Urban Utilities Network

Energy Connection & Production

Public Urban Space

Vertical services Distribution line Mother structure

HYBRID MODULAR BUILDING

Type Urban Residential Unit

(also reusing of existing nude structures)

Living device Involucre device

147

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Mother structure Equipped volumetric structural module

HYBRID MODULAR BUILDING

Type Tall Building

Flat pack volumetric Structural module

Living device Involucre device

Structural connection between mother structure and living modules

148

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

LIVING POD

(individual microcosm fucntions) Living Device Living Space

(NOT MODULAR)

Spazio senza attrezzature fisse ne’ impianti tecnologici

Involucre Cell (MODULAR) Connesso wi-‐fi

Illuminaizone naturale/artificiale Gestione rapporto c on spazio e sterno (ombreggiatura/finestra/balcone)

(MODULAR)

Pod Unico di Attrezzature Tecnologica Abitative FUNZIONI UTENTE Sanitaria (doccia,water lavandino) Cucinare (postazione c ooking) Lavare (lavtrice/lavastoviglie) Contenere (giardaroba, dispensa, e tc) Appoggiare (piano di appoggio) Clima (riscaldamento raffrescamento) Energia (potenza). Illuminazione Pod Connessione (wi-‐fi) CONNESSIONE CON STRUTTURA MADRE connessione plug in unica multipurpose (acqua. Energia, scarico, aria, e tc) Sistemi c entralizzati Regolaizone Individuale Controllo profili di c onsumo da remoto Manutenzione predittiva da remoto Intervneti il più possibnle dall’esterno APP UNICA DI GESTIONE E CONTROLLO (lato utente/ lato gestore)

LIVING POD

(technological equipment) INVOLUCRE CELL Light control (natural and artificial) Shading outdoor curtain Interior diffusive curtain Desk and study corner Glass parapet Terrace (optional)

LIVING DEVICE Access (door) Closed (wardrobe) Washing machine Basin, wc, shower Food corner Kitchen storage Microwave Lunch table/desk Ceiling background (projected decoration) Light control Climate control Wi-‐fi connection Control interface (app)

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Living Device Politecnico (design sp.) + App Tool Ambient

HousApp

APP INTEGRATA DI GESTIONE E CONTROLLO (utente/ gestore) Regolazione Individuale Controllo profili di c onsumo da remoto Manutenzione predittiva da remoto

HOUS APP

Living Device

Politecnico (design sp.) SIEMENS Gewiss Valsir + IOT Elettrodomestici Arredi smart Accessi smart ...

(MODULAR – INDUSTRIAL PROD)

Pod Unico di Attrezzature Tecnologiche Abitative FUNZIONI Sanitaria (doccia,water lavandino) Cucinare (postazione c ooking) Lavare (lavtrice/lavastoviglie) Contenere (giardaroba, dispensa, e tc) Appoggiare (piano di appoggio) Clima (riscaldamento raffrescamento) Energia (potenza). Illuminazione Pod Connessione (wi-‐fi) Gestione A ccessi – Delivery Box Safety

Gewiss Valsir Progress

Super Socket (maschio) Integrato nel Living Device

Super P lug (femmina) da integrare nella Struttura Madre

Involucre Cell Politecnico (design sp.) + App Tool Ambient

Standard di Connessione

CONNESSIONE CON STRUTTURA MADRE Connessione rapida multipurpose (acqua, energia, scarico, aria, e tc)

HousApp

APP INTEGRATA DI GESTIONE E CONTROLLO (utente/ gestore) Regolazione Individuale Controllo profili di c onsumo da remoto Manutenzione predittiva da remoto

HOUS APP

Involucre Cell

Politecnico (design sp.)

(MODULAR – INDUSTRIAL PROD)

SIEMENS

Cellula di interazione con lo spazio esterno

Gewiss + Involucri Smart Shading/Curtain Lighting Allarm ... Gewiss Progress

149

FUNZIONI Light c ontrol-‐ventilation (natural and artificial) Shading outdoor c urtain Interior diffusive c urtain Wallpaper decoration Desk and study corner Terrace (optional) Architecture (facade faturing) Security -‐ Anti introusion systems

Socket maschio

Integrato nel Involucre Cell

Plug femmina

da integrare nella Struttura Madre

Connessione

CONNESSIONE CON STRUTTURA MADRE Connessione rapida (energia)

150

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Product design: urban location

Localizzazione via S. Faustino 10

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

151

152

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

SLP libera ( 0,35)– pod abitativi residenziali

QUANTITA’

SLP servizi abitativi integrati convenzionati pod abitativi SLP S ervizi abitativi integrati convenzionati spazi comuni in Outsourcing

Area Lotto SLP Esistente SLP Libera edificabile ( 0,35)

IPOTESI A – EDILIZIA LIBERA 12 POD

1.064 mq 225 m q 370 m q

IPOTESI B – SERVIZI ABITATIVI INTEGRATI CONV. + EDILIZIA LIBERA 39 POD

366 mq -‐ SLP libera 12 pod abitativi residenziali + hot spot

370 mq -‐ SLP libera 12 pod abitativi residenziali + hot spot

192 mq -‐ interrato

Ipotesi A Ipotesi – EDILIZIA A – LEDILIZIA IBERA LIBERA Pod abitativi Pod liberi abitativi liberi

153

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Ipotesi A – EDILIZIA LIBERA

Spazio aperto per temporary shops. Shipping Container Based Temporary Outdoor Shop Modular System

Accesso pedonale

Accesso pedonale Accesso carraio

Accesso carraio

154

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Ipotesi – SERVIZI ABITATIVI D. LLIBERA IBERA Ipotesi –BSERVIZI ABITATIVI ++ E LED. Ipotesi B –B SERVIZI ABITATIVI + ED. IBERA

Podabitativi abitativi liberi liberi Pod Pod abitativi liberi Podabitativi abitativi Pod Pod abitativi convenzionati. convenzionati. convenzionati. Cluster di pod Cluster Cluster ddi i pindividuali pod odindividuali individuali + hot spot + + hhot spot ot spot

Servizi comuni Servizi Servizi ccomuni omuni convenzionati, convenzionati, convenzionati, gestiti in outsourcing gestiti gestiti in in ooutsourcing utsourcing aperti a l p ubblico. aperti aperti aal l ppubblico. ubblico.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

155

Ipotesi B – SERVIZI ABITATIVI + ED. LIBERA Ipotesi B – SERVIZI ABITATIVI + ED. LIBERA

Accesso pedonale Accesso carraio

156

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

157

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Business plan

1-‐ OPZIONE 12 POD (singoli liberi) REVENUES (YEAR) BUILDING REVENUES ( 12pod * 680 € * 12 months) extra services revenues -‐ smart living device tech (€ expenses /user / month)

97.920 € 12

50 €

GLOBAL REVENUES

7.200 € 105.120 €

OPERATIONAL COSTS operational costs (mantenance, basic cleaning, landlording, taxes etc) energy costs

25.110 € 12 698 €

8.370 €

land renting

40.000 €

building operational costs

83.480 €

operational energy savings due to smart living device technologies

80%

6.696 €

GLOBAL OPERATIONAL COSTS

76.784 €

TOTAL BUILIDNG LIFE CYCLE PROFIT

28.336 € 2,5%

158

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

2-‐ OPZIONE 39 POD (singoli, 12 + 27 conv) COSTS LAND REPARATION C3OSTS 2-‐ POPZIONE 9 POD (singoli, 12+27 conv) oneri 38.000 € REVENUES (YEAR) demolizioni, bonifica 15.000 € Hardscape Landscape 980 40 € 39.200 € BUILDING EVENUES ((12pod*680 €) + (27pod*580€))*12 months 285.840 € TOTAL LAND PRREPARATION COSTS 92.200 € extra services revenues -‐ smart living device tech (€ expenses /user / month)S TRUCTURE 39 50 € 23.400 € MOTHER GLOBAL R(EVENUES 309.240 € costruzione PROGRESS) 1.121.860 € impianti m eccanici 197.408 € OPERATIONAL impianti elettrici COSTS 152.400 € operational 39 680 € 26.505 € serramenti fissicosts (mantenance, landlording, basic cleaning, taxes) 100.000 € extra s ervices costs (basic cleaning) 35.340 € total structure costs 1.571.668 € energy 39 680 8% € 26.505 € soft costs costs 125.733 € land M renting € TOTAL OTHER STRUCTURE COST 39 43.523 € 40.000 1.697.402 € building operational costs

138.350 €

LIVING DEVICES 39 15.000 € 585.000 € operational energy savings due to smart living device technologies 39 544 € 21.204 € 80% Smart living device tech costs 39 5.000 € 195.000 € GLOBAL OPERATIONAL COSTS 117.146 € TOTALE LIVING D EVICES COSTS 780.000 € GOBAL LIFE CYCLE PROFIT TOTAL BUILDING COSTS

€ 8% 1.454 € 192.094 2.569.602 €

1767

2-‐ OPZIONE 39 POD (singoli, 12+27 conv) REVENUES (YEAR) BUILDING REVENUES 3 (9 (12pod*680 €) + (27pod*580€))*12 months 2-‐ OPZIONE POD (singoli, 12+27 conv) extra services revenues -‐ smart living device tech (€ expenses /user / REVENUES (YEAR) month) GLOBAL REVENUES BUILDING REVENUES ((12pod*680 €) + (27pod*580€))*12 months extra services revenues -‐ smart living device tech (€ expenses /user / OPERATIONAL COSTS month) costs ( mantenance, landlording, basic cleaning, taxes) operational GLOBAL REVENUES extra services costs (basic cleaning) energy costs OPERATIONAL COSTS land renting operational costs ( mantenance, landlording, basic cleaning, taxes) extra soervices costs (basic cleaning) building perational costs energy costs land renting operational energy savings due to smart living device technologies GLOBAL OPERATIONAL building operational cCOSTS osts GOBAL LIFE CYCLE PROFIT operational energy savings due to smart living device technologies

285.840 € 39

50 €

39 680 50 €€ 39

39 680 € 39 680 € 39 680 €

39 544 €

23.400 € 309.240 € 285.840 € 23.400 €€ 26.505 309.240 35.340 €€ 26.505 € 40.000 € 26.505 € 35.340 €€ 138.350 26.505 € 40.000 €€ 80% 21.204

117.146 138.350 €€ 8% 39 544 € 192.094 21.204 €€ 80%

GLOBAL OPERATIONAL COSTS

117.146 €

GOBAL LIFE CYCLE PROFIT

192.094 € 8%

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

159

BASIC BASIC INFORMATION INFORMATION AACQUIRED CQUIRED BBY MARKET Y MARKET PPLAYERS LAYERS BASIC INFORMATION ACQUIRED BY MARKET P LAYERS SALES SALES (Dove Vivo) (Dove Vivo) SALES (Dove Vivo)

edilizia edilizia libera libera edilizia libera 680 €/month 680 €/month 680 €/month 420 €/month 420 €/month 420 €/month

Canone Canone utente utente in pod singolo in pod singolo Canone utente in pod singolo Canone Canone utente utente in pod doppio in pod doppio Canone utente in pod doppio

convenzionata convenzionata (studentato) (studentato) convenzionata (studentato) 580 €/month 580 €/month 580 €/month 420 €/month 420 €/month 420 €/month

Extra aaccess €€ /month Extra fee fee or technological platform access 50 €50 /month Extra fee for technological platform for technological platform ccess 50 /month LAND RENTING (Land OOwner) LAND RENTING (Land Owner) LAND RENTING (Land wner) pper year Fee Fee pFee er year er year

50 €50 /month 50 €€/month /month

40.000 €€/year 40.000 €/year 40.000 /year

MOTHER SSTRUCTURE CCOSTS MOTHER STRUCTURE COSTS MOTHER TRUCTURE OSTS

12 P12 OD 12 PPOD OD 454.000 € 454.000 € 454.000 € 291.000 € 291.000 € 291.000 €

39 P39 OD 39 PPOD OD 1.120.000 1.120.000 € €€ 1.120.000 349.000 € 349.000 € 349.000 €

TRADITIONAL ENERGY CCOSTS (Dove vivo) TRADITIONAL ENERGY COSTS (Dove vivo) TRADITIONAL ENERGY OSTS (Dove vivo) 15€/mq/year 8.370 15€/mq/year 8.370 € €€ 15€/mq/year 8.370

26.000 26.000 € €€ 26.000

POTENCIAL ENERGY SSAVINGS (Mandurino) POTENCIAL ENERGY SAVINGS (Mandurino) POTENCIAL ENERGY AVINGS (Mandurino) 6.600 80%80% 6.600 € €€ 80% 6.600

21.000 21.000 € €€ 21.000

Completed Frame (progress Completed Frame (progress ) )) Completed Frame (progress MEP (Mandurino) MEP (Mandurino) MEP (Mandurino)

SINGLE POD -‐ BUSINESS PLAN DRAFT USER HOUSING F EE 680 € / 580 € /month 8.160 € / 6.960 € / year Smart Technologies EXTRA F EE 50 € / m onth 600 € / year HOUSING ACCOUNT TOTAL F EE 730 € / 630 € / m onth 8.760 € / 7.560 € / year

SERVICES PROVIDER

MOTHER STR. OWNER

LAND OWNER

8.760 € / 7.560 € / year

5.100 € / 4.380 € / year

1,280 € / year

Real Estate 57% (Hos. fee) 390 € / 330 € month 4.680 € / 3.960 € / year

Operational costs (taxes) 300 € / year Land renting 1,280 € / year

Traditional Energy costs 56 € / m onth 680€ / year ENERGY SAVINGS TECH 35 € /month 420 € / year ENERGY SAVINGS BEHAV 20 € /month 240 € / year Maintenance, 680 € / y ear

2.720 € / 2 .240 € / year 13,6% / 11,2%

2.960 € / 2 .500 € / year 14,8% / 12,5%

Living device 20.000 € / pod

3.520 € / 2.800 € / year

8% / 7%

Mother St. i nvest 43.000 € /pod

8% / 7%

Land Value 12.800 € /pod

160

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

BUSINESS PLAN DRAFT – 12 POD BUSINESS PLAN DRAFT – 12 POD

HOUSING F EE 97.920 € / year

SERVICES MOTHER STR. PROVIDER OWNER

MOTHER STR. LAND OWNER OWNER

LAN

105.120 € / €year 60.814 / year

60.814 yyear 40.000 €€/ / ear

Real EOperational state 57% (costs Hos. f(taxes) ee) 3.600 € / year

8% costs Operational (taxes) 450.000 3.600 € / year

USER SERVICES PROVIDER

USER

HOUSING F EE 105.120 € / year 97.920 € / year

Smart Technologies EXTRA F EE 7.200 € / year

Smart Technologies Real Estate 57% ( Hos. fee) EXTRA 55.814 F€EE / year 7.200 € / year

HOUSING ACCOUNT TOTAL F EE 105.120 / year

Traditional Energy costs HOUSING 8.370 A€CCOUNT / year TOTAL F EE ENERGY SAVINGS 105.120 / year 5.000 € / year

55.814 € / year

Traditional Energy costs 8.370 € / year 17.214 € / year

17.214 € / year ENERGY SAVINGS 5.000 € / year

1,4 %

1,4 Mother St. invest 1.159.103 € % Maintenance,

landlording, etc costs 25.110 € / year

15.826 € / year

Living device 240.000 €

Land renting 40.000 € / year

Maintenance, landlording, etc costs 25.110 € / year

6,5 %

Land Value

6,5 %

Mother St. i nvest 1.159.103 €

Living device 240.000 €

SERVICES – (DRAFT BUSINESS – 39 POD (12+27conv.) -‐ (via san Fa HOUSING SERVICES – DRAFT HOUSING BUSINESS PLAN – 39 POD 12+27conv.) -‐ (via san PFLAN austino 10 M ilano) USER

SERVICES PROVIDER USER (dove vivo)

HOUSING F EE 285.840 € / year

319.240 € / year

Smart Technologies EXTRA F EE 23.400 € / year HOUSING ACCOUNT TOTAL F EE 309.240 € / year

OUTSOURCING SERVICES Coffice-‐lab 10.000 € / year

HOUSING F EE 285.840 € / year

Real Estate 57% (Hos. fee) 176.280 € / year

Smart Technologies EXTRA F EE Traditional Energy costs 23.400 €y/ year 26.520 € / ear ENERGY SAVINGS TECH 16.380 € / year

HOUSING ACCOUNT ENERGY SAVINGS BEHAV TOTAL F EE 9.360 € / year 309.240 € / year Maintenance, 26.520 € / year

89.920 € / year

99.280 € / year

OUTSOURCING 11,5 12,7 Living device SERVICES 780.000 € % % Coffice-‐lab 10.000 € / year

MOTHER STR. OWNER MOTHER STR. OWNER SERVICES PROVIDER LAND OWNER (Progress, Gewiss, (private i nvestor) (Progress, Gewiss, Valsir, Siemens) (dove vivo) 40.000 € / year

192.660 € / year

319.240 € / year

Operational costs (taxes) 11.700 € / year

Land Value192.660 € / y ear 500.000

Real state 57% (Hos. fee) Land rEenting 40.000 € / year 176.280 € / year 140.960 € / year

Energy costs 8,4 Traditional Mother St. i nvest 1.677.000 % 26.520 €€ / year ENERGY SAVINGS TECH 16.380 € / year St. i nd. 10,5 Mother costs % ENERGY 1.341.000 € SAVINGS BEHAV 9.360 € / year

Mother St. i nvest 1.677.000 €

LYFE CYCLE PROFIT

10,5 %

99.280 € / year

12,7 %

Land renting 40.000 € / year

8,4 %

Maintenance, 26.520 € / year

11,5 %

Operational costs (taxes) 11.700 € / year

140.960 € / year

LYFE CYCLE PROFIT

89.920 € / year

Valsir, Siemens)

Living device 780.000 €

Mother St. i nd. costs 1.341.000 €

161

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Process design scheme

MOTHER STRUCTURE Supplier 1

LIVING DEVICES Supplier 2 HousApp

ENVELOPE DEVICES Supplier 3

LAND OWNER XXXXXXXX

MOTHER STRUCTURE OWNER

HOUSING SERVICES PROVIDER

162

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Validation: pilot project final release Typology PRODUCT DESIGN Applicazione progettuale

PRODUCT DESIGN

Applicazione progettuale

Ipotesi B Ipotesi B SERVIZI ABITATIVI INTEGRATI CONVENZIONATI + SERVIZI ABITATIVI INTEGRATI CONVENZIONATI EDILIZIA LIBERA + EDILIZIA LIBERA

STUDENTATO

AD ALBERGO

A M INI A LLOGGI

Le camere singole (o doppie) si affacciano su corridoi, è realizzabile preferibilmente con bagno di pertinenza

Appartamenti di piccole dimensioni (dotati di zona di cottura, servizio igienico e zona giorno) raggruppati intorno a zone di distribuzione

Decreto Ministeriale n. 936 28 n ov. 2016 Standard minimi dimensionali e qualitativi e linee guida relative ai parametri tecnici ed economici concernenti la realizzazione di alloggi e residenze per studenti universitari. (Decreto n. 9 36/2016)

I requisiti dimensionali minimi d i superficie netta sono i seguenti: camera singola (posto letto, posto studio) ≥11,0 m ² ; camera doppia (due posti letto, posto studio) ≥16,0 m² zona preparazione e consumazione pasti interna +1 m ² Servizio igienico (lavabo, doccia, wc, bidet), condivisibile fino ad un massimo di 3 posti alloggio ≥3,0 m ²

A N UCLEI I NTEGRATI Numero variabile di camere, preferibilmente singole, in grado di ospitare generalmente da 3 a 8 studenti che fanno riferimento per alcune funzioni (preparazione pasti, pranzo e soggiorno, ecc.) ad ambiti spaziali riservati

Regolamento edilizio di Milano Art. 74. a. Per la s.l.p. destinata ad attività di interesse pubblico o generale (ospedali, residenze sanitarie assistenziali, case per studenti, scuole, ecc.),

Vengono scomputati nella SLP fino ad una quota del 10% d i tale SLP: Gli spazi accessori all’attività principale, quali: -‐ palestre, -‐ luoghi di culto, -‐ sale ricreative per gli ospiti e per gli addetti, -‐ e relativi servizi igienici

La sup. netta delle funzioni di servizio a posto alloggio ≥ 5,0 m ²/p.a. per gli utenti con disabilità fi siche o sensoriali d eve essere riservato un numero di posti alloggio ≥ 5% del numero di posti alloggio totali: la superficie a posto alloggio deve essere incrementata almeno del 10%

Superficie min netta della stanza (compreso il bagno): 16,2 m q (11+1+0.1x12+3)

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

163

Area Lotto SLP Esistente SLP Lotto Libera m q Area ( 0,35) 1.064 SLP Esistente 225 SLP studentato m q

SLP Piano interrato (servizi) SLP Piano terra (servizi) 370 m q

SLP Libera (0,35)

SLP studentato 1.115 mq SLP Piani superiori (cluster) SLP Piano interrato (servizi) 65 mq SLP Piano terra (servizi) 240 SLP T OTALE m q SLP Piani superiori (cluster) 810 mq SLP TOTALE

1.064 mq 225 mq 370 mq 1.115 mq 65 mq 240 mq 810 mq 1.485 mq

1.485 mq

Numero pod abitativi 39 Numero pod abitativi

164

Pod abitativi l iberi Pod abitativi c onvenzionati. Cluster di pod individuali + hot spot Servizi c omuni c onvenzionati, gestiti i n outsourcing aperti al pubblico

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Planivolumetrico

Planimetria I nterrato

Planivolumetrico Planivolumetrico

Planimetria I nterrato Planimetria I nterrato

Planimetria I nterrato

165

166

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Planimetria piano terra Planimetria piano terra Planimetria piano terra Planimetria piano terra

nvenzionata – piani 1/2/3)

ano quarto

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Planimetria piano tipo (Edilizia Convenzionata – piani 1/2/3) Planimetria piano tipo (Edilizia Convenzionata – piani 1/2/3) Planimetria piano tipo (Edilizia Convenzionata – piani 1/2/3)

Planimetria piano quarto Planimetria piano quarto Planimetria piano quarto

167

168

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Planimetria piano quinto

Planimetria uinto Planimetria ppiano iano qq uinto Planimetria piano quinto

Planimetria terrazza

Planimetria errazza Planimetria tterrazza Planimetria terrazza

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Sezione AA

Sezione BB

169

170

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Ptrospetto EST

Vista da v ia S an F austino

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Ptrospetto NORD

Vista da strada Vista da strada

171

172

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Vista da strada

Ptrospetto SUD

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

173

174

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Layout and interior

PRODUCT DESIGN Applicazione progettuale

LAYOUT

-‐ -‐ -‐

Piano terra Cluster Living P od

Accesso Coffice Accesso Residenza Accesso di servizio Accesso carraio Planimetria piano terra

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

175

Layout

Piano tipo

Layout

Piano tipo

Planimetria piano tipo

Layout

Assonometria piano tipo

Piano tipo

Assonometria piano tipo

176

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Vista corridoio interno

Layout

Hotspot

lavatrice lavello lavastoviglie piastra a induzione

Layout

Hotspot

lavatrice lavello lavastoviglie piastra a induzione

colonna forno -‐ microonde colonna forno -‐ microonde Frigo doppia anta Frigo doppia anta

Layout

Hotspot Vista corridoio interno

Hotspot di piano -‐ piano tipo Hotspot di piano -‐ piano tipo

0 2 5 10m 0 2 5 10m

lavatrice lavello

lavatrice

lavastoviglie piastra a induzione

lavello

colonna forno -‐ microonde

lavastoviglie

Frigo doppia anta

piastra a ind

colonna forn

Frigo doppia 0 2 5 10m

Hotspot di piano -‐ piano tipo

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

177

Vista Hotspot di piano

Layout

Delivery boxes area

Vista Hotspot di piano

Layout

Delivery boxes area

0 2 5 10m

Ingresso -‐ piano tipo

0 2 5 10m

178

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Vista ingresso al piano

Vista Delivery boxes area

Vista ingresso al piano Vista Delivery boxes area

Vista Delivery boxes area

Vista D

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

179

Mother structure PRODUCT DESIGN

PRODUCT progettuale DESIGN Applicazione Applicazione progettuale PRODUCT DESIGN

Applicazione progettuale

MOTHER MOTHER SSTRUCTURE TRUCTURE MOTHER STRUCTURE

Mother structure OP. A

-‐ -‐

Op. A – 12 pod Op. – 12 -‐ APlan and pfod acades

-‐ -‐ -‐

Op. A – 12 pod Op. BPlan – 39 pod -‐ and facades Op. – 39 -‐ BPlan and pfod acades

-‐

Op. B – 39 pod

Plan and facades

-‐ -‐

Plan and and facades Section details Section and details

-‐ -‐ -‐

Section and details Plan and and facades Section details Section and details

-‐ -‐

Plan and facades Section and details

Mother structure

Plan and f

180 Mother structure OP. A

Sections and details

Mother structure OP. B Plan and facades

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Mother structure OP. A

Sections and details

Mother structure OP. B Plan and facades

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

181

Mother structure OP. B Mother structure OP. B Sections and details Sections and details

182

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Living Pod

PRODUCT DESIGN Applicazione progettuale

LIVING POD

1. P OD LAYOUT

LIVING P OD

2. DEVICES -‐ Living device -‐ Envelope device

Dati dimensionali

18,70 mq no) 3,00 mq 15,70 mq

LIVING P OD

Dati dimensionali

310

Superficie tot 18,70 mq Sup. device (netto bagno) 3,00 mq Sup. area living 15,70 mq

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

183

LIVING P OD

Opzioni di arredo

Prospetto AA’

scrivania

Divano letto Piano di appoggio/tavolo Prospetto A’A

Planimetria

Opzione 1

LIVING P OD

Opzioni di arredo

Prospetto AA’

scrivania Divano letto Piano di appoggio/tavolo Prospetto A’A

Planimetria

Opzione 2

184

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

LIVING POD

(technological equipment)

ENVELOPE CELL Gruppo Infisso Gruppo Balcone (optional)

GRUPPO TECN

LIVING DEVICE

gruppo bagno

gruppo c ucina

ENVELOPE DEVICE

gruppo accesso

gruppo infisso gruppo balcone (eventuale)

LIVING DEVICE Gruppo Cucina Gruppo Bagno Gruppo Accesso

GRUPPO TECN COMPONENTI FUNZIONI IOT/APP COMPONENTI FUNZIONI IOT/APP gruppo bagno parete l avabo lavabo consumi acqua contenitore parete l avabo lavabo consumi acqua specchio i nterattivo dati biometrici contenitore bilancia piometrici avimento dati biometrici specchio i nterattivo dati ab bilancia a pavimento dati biometrici parete sanitari sistema water consumi acqua sistema docciaacqua consumi acqua parete sanitari sistema water consumi cromoterapia consumo elettrico sistema doccia consumi acqua illuminazione consumo elettrico cromoterapia consumo elettrico illuminazione consumo elettrico control panel dati – sensori ambiente – interfaccia ut/g control panel dati – sensori ambiente – interfaccia ut/gest illuminazione ambiente consumi elettrici interfaccia utente illuminazione ambiente digital wallpaper consumi elettrici digital wallpaper interfaccia utente climatizzazione ambiente consumi – dati c lima climatizzazione ambiente consumi – dati c lima microonde gruppo c ucina frigo microonde lavastoviglie frigo lavello lavastoviglie cottura i nduzione due punti lavello aspiratore fumi cottura i nduzione due punti aspiratore fumi gruppo accesso porta e c ontrollo accessi dati di accesso porta e c ontrollo accessi (id digitale + c hiave fisica di back up) dati uso (id digitale + c hiave fisica di back up) dati di accesso dati uso gruppo infisso regolazione e filtraggio luce naturale dati c lima illuminazione consumi el regolazione e filtraggio luce naturale artificiale ambiente dati c lima consumi el + dati c lima illuminazione artificiale aventilazione mbiente naturale consumi el ventilazione naturale consumi el + dati c lima gruppo balcone (eventuale)

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

185 LIVING D EVICE DEVICE LIVING Dati dimensionali

Dati dimensionali

LIVING DEVICE Dati dimensionali

LIVING DEV

Dati dimensio

186

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

LIVING DEVICE Dati dimensionali

187

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

LIVING DEVICE Finestra optional

LIVING DEVICE

Finestra optional LIVING DEVICE

Vano per passaggio impiantiVano per passaggio impianti Finestra optional

(ricircolo d ’aria/condizionamento/illuminazione) (ricircolo d ’aria/condizionamento/illuminazione)

Vano per passaggio impianti (ricircolo d ’aria/condizionamento/illuminazione)

Illuminazione am ienti doccia e la ello-‐wc

WC-‐Bidet integrato WC-‐Bidet integrato WC-‐Bidet integrato (modello tipo Ideal standard small twin) (modello tipo Ideal standard small twin) (modello tipo Ideal standard small twin)

LIVING DEVICE

Assonometria

LIVING DEVICE

Vano per passaggio impianti Vano per passaggio impianti Assonometria (ricircolo d ’aria/condizionamento/illuminazione) (ricircolo d ’aria/condizionamento/illuminazione) Vano per passaggio impianti (ricircolo d ’aria/condizionamento/illuminazione)

Gruppo cucina

Gruppo cucina Gruppo cucina

Gruppo cucina

Gruppo cucina Gruppo cucina

188

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

LIVING DEVICE

LIVING DEVICE Esploso assonometrico

LIV

Esploso assonometrico Esplos

Mother Structure + Living Device

Mother Structure + Living DeviceMother Str

Living Device

Cavedio impianti Incavo (15cm) Solaio Mother structure

Living Device

Living

Cavedio impianti

Cavedio i

Incavo ( 15cm)

Incavo

Solaio Mother structure Solaio Mother st

LIVING DEVICE – GRUPPO BAGNO Funzionalità

Gruppo cucina Specchio I-‐tec (modello tipo J.L. Cybertecture, Cybertecture mirror)

Bilancia I-‐Tec (modello tipo Quadrio, Base2)

Doccia multifunzionale (modello tipo Harfo-‐gruppoGeromin, Soul)

WC-‐Bidet integrato (modello tipo Ideal S tandard, Small Twin)

Spazio tecnico per alloggio m acchinari Cavedio Impianti Gruppo Accesso

egrato

S tandard, n

189

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

LIVING DEVICE – GRUPPO BAGNO Arredi

Optional

Bilancia I-‐tec modello tipo Quadrio, Doccia multifunzionale

modello tipo Harfo-‐Base2 gruppoGeromin, Soul

Specchio I-‐tec modello tipo J.L. Cybertecture, WC-‐Bidet integrato

mirror modello Cybertecture tipo Ideal S tandard, Small Twin

Optional

Bilancia I-‐tec

Specchio I-‐tec

modello tipo Quadrio, Base2

modello tipo J.L. Cybertecture, Cybertecture mirror

190

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

LIVING DEVICE – GRUPPO CUCINA Funzionalità Fancoil

Fancoil

IlluminazioneIlluminazione VideocitofonoVideocitofono Control panelControl panel Sistema stereo Sistema stereo Prese energia Prese e USBenergia e USB Connettori multi-‐purpose Connettori multi-‐purpose sensoristica sensoristica

LIVING DEVICE – GRUPPO ACCESSO Funzionalità

LIVING DEVICE – GRUPPO ACCESS

Funzional

Illuminazione

Illuminazione Control panel accessi

Control panel accessi

Lettore chiave elettronica ( o simile)

LIVING DEVICE – GRUP

Illuminazione

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

191

CONCEPT DESIGN Device CONCEPT DLiving ESIGN Living Device

192

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

ENVELOPE DEV

Funzion

ENVELOPE DEVICE Funzionalità

Illuminazione

energia solare

Batteria accumulo energia solare

Ventilazione m eccanica controllata Pellicola fotovoltaica

a controllata

fotovoltaica

e di corrente

Prese di corrente

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

193

ENVELOPE DEVICE Ipotesi cerniera

ENVEL

194

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Technical systems and components

PRODUCT DESIGN Applicazione progettuale

TECHNICAL SYSTEMS

-‐

LIVING P OD

-‐

Mother structure

-‐ -‐

LIVING P OD

Typological mechanical plants – SOLUTION B

Mechanical plants Electrical plants

LIVING P OD

Typological mechanical plants – SOLUTION B

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

Technical systems

Typical electic and special distribution

LIVING P OD

Typical electic and special distribution

195

Technical systems

Typical electic and special distribution

LIVING P OD

Typical electic and special distribution

196

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Technical systems

Typological architecture of Distribution Electrical and S pecial Plants

Technical systems

Typological mechanical plants

Technical systems

Typological mechanical plants

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

197

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

198

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

Materiale Gewiss

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

199

Materiale G ewiss

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Materiale G ewiss

200

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

201

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Materiale Gewiss

202

ENVELOPE DEVICE fornitore

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

ENVELOPE DEVICE fornitore

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

LIVING DEVICE Impianto idraulico -‐ Valsir

203

204

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP MATERIALS

LIVING DEVICE

Optional

Impianto idraulico -‐ Valsir

Optional

Filtraggio acqua modello tipo Shower Drain Systems, Rule

Sistema eliminazione odori

Filtraggio acqua

modello tipo Ariapur, Valsir

modello tipo Shower Drain Systems, Rule

LIV

LIVING D

Impianto

colonna d’impianto colonna d’impianto colonna d’impianto

modello tipo Domo Center, modello modello tipo Domo Center, tipo Domo Center, Gewiss

Gewiss Gewiss

Sistema H ome AHutomation Sistema Sistema H ome ome Automation Automation modello tipo Bus KNX Easy, modello modello tipo Bus KNX Easy, tipo Bus KNX Easy, Gewiss

Gewiss Gewiss

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

205

LIVING LIVIN D

LIVING DEVICE

Impianto Impi

Impianto elettrico

LIVING DEVICE Impianto elettrico

206

ANNEX 3: THE DOVE VIVO CASE

ANNEX 3: The Dove Vivo case A3.1 From a peer-to-peer interchange platform between owners and users, to the business to consumer supply of integrated housing services Main features of the service offered

The situation of emerging new living models in Italy constitutes a scenario in which it is possible to identify the first important symptoms of change in the direction of housing as a service. The strong penetration of the sharing economy in various sectors seems to be well established. The consistent establishment of peer-to-peer services such as AirBnB, Home Away and other subjects in the field of tourist accommodation outside the hotel have confirmed that socio-cultural context is ready to accept forms of a collaborative economy – also in the real estate sector especially in the main urban contexts. The spread of co-working, although not structured on a large scale, should also be noted in this sense. The main international players of this service (Welive, The Collective, etc.) are not yet present in Italy. In regard to real housing services in Italy, the situation differs from the reference contexts of the case studies analyzed. There are no such entities as those analyzed, i.e, business to consumer platforms, in the housing sector with consolidated and codified housing products. The reality of Dove Vivo represents in our opinion the most advanced case in this field in the national scenario, with characteristics that make it somehow unique of its kind internationally. According to the sharing economy parameters could in fact define the Dove Vivo model as an apparently business-to-consumer service (i.e. it provides an exchange and product platform). In reality it is a “hidden” peer-to-peer service between owners and tenants. The owners are provided with a rent guaranteed by a lease, while the tenants are in fact provided with “integrated housing services” based on the properties made available. Therefore owners and tenants never come into direct contact with each other. Below is described the analysis made on the Dove Vivo model, which was made possible thanks to the direct exchange with the managers of the company. They agreed to be directly involved in the development of this research. As an aftermath of this exchange, the company decided to collaborate actively in the experimental and application phase of research (pilot project workshop). ove Vivo was founded in 2007 for the satisfaction of the personal need of the founding members, at the time university students offspring. It experienced a strong growth that saw it pass in the first six years from 4 real estate units managed in 2007, to 120 units in 2012 (+100 % average every year) arriving in the following five years to date (2017) to over 600 units currently managed (+ 40% average each year) for a current total of about 2700 users in five cities, mainly in Milan, but also in Rome, Bologna, Como and Turin (data LIVE WHERE). The target audience of Dove Vivo corresponds to an age group of 18 to 35 years with a trend of the limit of 35 years to grow up to 40. 55% of users are university students while 45% are professionals. 71% come from Italy, 15% from the rest of Europe, and 15% from the rest of the world. (source Dove Vivo).

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

The classic peer-to-peer platforms (of the AirBnB type) only deal with putting the users who provide the service in direct contact with those who use it, while the actual service is materially a direct exchange between the private subjects. In the case of Dove Vivo, the meeting between supply and demand is managed and provided directly by Dove Vivo. The company therefore ranks as the guarantor of the reliability in the exchange for both parties towards their counterparts. In reality, AirBnB also plays a similar role in “guaranteeing” the reliability of the parties involved in the exchange, but it does so by providing a reputational assessment of the subjects actually generated by the users themselves, of which, however, AirBnB guarantees reliability. In the case of Dove Vivo, the intermediary subject goes much further. There is no cross-reputational classification of subjects because Dovr Vivo actually assumes the responsibility in first person of the relationship both with the owners and with the tenants. In fact, the subject that guarantees the income to the owners is Dove Vivo itself, as well those who guarantee the quality of the housing services towards the tenants is again Dove Vivo. This implies in fact a “taking charge” of the product and services provided much closer to the business-to-consumer model than the pure peer-to-peer model. The commercial success of Dove Vivo and at the same time the managerial problems deriving from this hybrid nature of the business model between peer–to-peer and business-to-consumer, are of great interest for the purposes of this research. The main plus value of the Dove Vivo activity is therefore linked not so much to the product itself (rooms and beds), but from the services that are conveyed to users (owners and tenants) through housing. The owners are provided with an integrated service for the identification of tenants and the management of all types of tasks connected to the management of a lease, eliminating any risk to the property, including that of possible insolvency of the tenants. Tenants are provided with an integrated service that includes in a single fixed fee any charges related to housing including energy, connection, condominium, etc. Therefore in the Dove Vivo case we should no longer speak of owners and tenants, but of users who are suppliers and users who are using. Dove Vivo provides housing services to both. By evaluating the financial flows involved, the intuition of Dove Vivo allows on average to multiply the gross rent per square meter. This mainly for two reasons: 1.

More efficient typological exploitation of spaces thanks to a typological interpretation closer to new market needs, to the current social changes, and to the emerging housing behaviors in the new generations. This aspect is made evident by the comparison of data on the prevalent types of managed apartments (31% three-room apartments, 29% two-room apartments) with those relating to the main housing solution proposed to users (70% single). (source Dove Vivo)

207

Competitive advantages

208

Weak points of the model

ANNEX 3: THE DOVE VIVO CASE

2. Valorization of the services provided that allow both types of users to have the only service with a fixed and guaranteed value, with the minimization of every task related to the management summarized in the phrase â&#x20AC;&#x153;zero thoughtsâ&#x20AC;? both for the supplier users and for using users. The main problems related to this model confirm the business-to-consumer nature of the Dove Vivo. In fact, the consequence of this model, in which the manager acts as a direct provider of services through someone elseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s properties, is the extreme heterogeneity of the basic product that Dove Vivo should manage: different room sizes, different services provided to non-homologated and nonequivalent using users, the impossibility to control and monitor consumptions, the energy behavior of users, difficulties in managing maintenance costs due to the extreme diversity of the technological systems and the consequent frequent need for on-site maintenance interventions. This problem obviously grows more than linearly with the increase in the number of users, and sets limits on the services that Dove Vivo can provide to both categories of users: 1.

Concerning the supplying users (owners), Dove Vivo cannot guarantee to take on routine and extraordinary maintenance. In fact, although repairs are managed by Dove Vivo, they are now borne by the individual owners in terms of costs. Dove Vivo proposes to the owners the technicians for maintenance or repair intervention, but as the owner should pay the costs, he can decide to use them or use other technicians. This obviously does not give homogeneous guarantees of intervention and certainly does not play in favor of the optimization of maintenance costs.

2. Concerning the using users Dove Vivo can not guarantee homogeneous and optimal services to all of them: general quality of the accommodation, single room or bed in a shared room, individual or shared bathroom, homogeneous common services. For the same reasons, air conditioning is not provided at all. The offer is therefore declined and valorised in a differentiated and specific way on a case-by-case basis, often having to renounce higher profitability due to the impossibility of offering the optimal level of service. In addition to the services offered, the hybrid nature of the Dove Vivo model also generates diseconomies in operating costs related to utilities (energy connection). While for using users these costs are charged at a flat-rate and included in the fee, Dove Vivo as a direct tenant can choose suppliers but must nevertheless pay the utilities according to consumption. The controls on the general sustainability of the budget revenue outputs related to consumption can be done only at the level of total numbers. Once again technological heterogeneity does not allow a punctual and efficient verification of individual energy behaviors. Since the business model of Dove Vivo is essentially based on profitability over the life-

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

cycle of housing, the reduction and optimization of management costs (energy and maintenance) directly affects margins and profits and constitutes the main scope of performance growth.

209

Neighborhood micro-community

Like all residential players of housing-as-a-service, Dove Vivo also focuses its commercial promise to the users on community, relationships and sustainable lifestyle. The desire to share living spaces is an intrinsic aspect of the need that Dove Vivo intercepts according to a double level of reading: 1.

Combine the privacy of the individual sphere with the possibility of social sharing of experience in a proximal interpersonal space that is somehow in the middle between the private of the individual microcosm and the public of urban space.

2. Perception of greater safety for the users as well as for their far relatives (in case of off-site students or young professionals). In this regard, the clear perception of community that Dove Vivo can provide must also be considered as a presence that actually “takes care” of users. 3. These considerations are very important in terms of awareness of the real service provided, also in its intangible components that are essential to understand the diffusion of this particular model of provision of housing services, as well as to identify the lines for its development and future growth. For example one of the needs that could be supported and implemented in order to provide a better service to users could be to promote microcommunities based on parameters related to professional or the interests of other users, also collected in a very simple way asking the preferences of users when they apply for the service. Probably from this point of view, the goal to be reached is the balance between the real possibility of privacy combined with the real possibility of sharing. The future development strategies that Dove Vivo intends to pursue in the real future can be summarized in the following programmatic points: a. TYPOLOGICAL INNOVATION: support for developers in real estate “green field” development aiming to orient the design specifically to its target. b. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION: optimization of management costs through the technological upgrading of its own housing product. c. COMMUNITY: implementation of an app aimed at the community of its user customers.

Future development strategies: typology, technology, community

210

ANNEX 3: THE DOVE VIVO CASE

These three expressed objectives reveal a clear awareness of Dove Vivo of its own nature as a subject of business-to-consumer collaborative economy, as well as its willingness to move in the sense of interpreting this role in an increasingly coherent manner. Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s see in detail some aspects of these three lines of development that are particularly useful for the purposes of this research: Typological innovation: The model of Dove Vivo is based on the intuition that there are housing needs related to emerging social behaviors in the younger generations that did not find adequate satisfaction in the types of housing actually available on real estate market. The activity of Dove Vivo consists in fact in adapting the existing housing typologies and the management modalities to these new living behaviors. While the management method responds to the need, the possibility of providing a typology that perfectly matches the needs of the target is limited by the physical conditions imposed by the existing assets. The only way to avoid these limits is to orient the design of new buildings that adapt typologies to the target of Dove Vivo. In this regard, an aspect highlighted by Dove Vivo that concerns their approach is also the attention to the reconfigurability and typological reversibility of buildings. Basically, one of the objectives is to define the distribution layouts so that in the future the distribution can be reconfigured according to other and different ways and habitats. This avoids a rigid specialization of the project and represents a factor of greater tranquility and availability of the investor and the real estate developer. Technological innovation: With the ultimate goal of reducing management and maintenance costs as much as possible, the action of Dove Vivo develops according to two distinct needs related to two categories of residential product: the one currently managed and the one that is to be developed in the future. As we have seen, the current product is characterized by a very strong technological heterogeneity and also by a strong multiplicity and variety of maintenance subjects. With respect to this heritage, Dove Vivo intends to move in the direction of the proceduralization of maintenance operations as much as possible â&#x20AC;&#x201C; also by making users responsible. Compared to the housing product to be developed in the future, the objectives are the following: (a) to standardize technologies and suppliers as much as possible

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

in order to unify and simplify the intervention procedures. (b) centralize the supply of services and utilities (energy, connection, etc.) to generate economies of scale in the purchase. (c) Ensuring the conditions of service are guaranteed to individual users and allowing individual adjustment of services (air conditioning, access, etc.) (d) Being able to monitor the energy profiles of individual users to promptly verify consumption in order to encourage human behaviors that have (comportamenti virtuosi) positive aftermaths in terms of sustaibalility, energy saving, environmental preservation, etc. Community: Where Vivo is implementing an internet platform (app) aimed at its users. While not having further details about how this application will be implemented, in fact the sole existence of a dedicated app in our opinion constitutes an important step forward in the growth of the sense of belonging to a community.

211

212

ANNEX 3: THE DOVE VIVO CASE

A3.2 Pilot Project: Urban Module of Housing Services, via San Faustino 10, Milano As a conclusion of this analysis of the case, Dove Vivo has been proposed to the company as a participant in a project experimentation workshop foreseen in the present doctoral research. Dove Vivo played the role of â&#x20AC;&#x153;clientâ&#x20AC;?, expressing the precise requirements of the project, interpreting and translating the new housing behaviors that constitute the present research in a precise and concrete way. Defining the assumptions and objectives of this experimentation, establishing the methodological and interaction modalities among the various subjects involved, as well as tracing its evolution and reporting the results will be the substance of the experimental and conclusive workshop of this research.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

213

214

ANNEX 4: TRACKING THE IDEA OF HYBRID MODULARITY IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY

ANNEX 4: SHORT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW TRACKING THE IDEA OF HYBRID MODULARITY IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY

Fig.61. Mobile Home (1929). (source: internet, The history of mobile homes https://mobilehomeliving.org/ the-history-of-mobile-homes/)

All the attempts to industrialize the construction process borrowed the main criteria and methods from the other industrial sectors, which had already been successfully industrialized. The main reference was the automobiles industry. The first step was to synthetize and standardize the client’s requirements, reducing them to the essential minimum. This allowed the designing of a prototype considering the minimum number of possible configurations, and the minimum number of parts and components in order to obtain the maximum efficiency of the supply chain production organization. Just like the car industry, the promise of industrialized building companies was to provide more technologically advanced houses for a lower price that could make the purchasing of a house affordable for a larger number of potential clients. In an early stage of attempts at building industrialization, the immediate transposition of the business and production models from the car industries, together with the widely diffuse preference for extra urban dwelling, lead to the conception and design of “single object” products

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

215

Â always interpreted as single family extra urban villas. However, from the beginning the peculiar characteristics that differentiated the dwelling from the majority of consumer products already in the industrialization phase, immediately became evident. The first was that the house was inserted in a precise physical place, which had to be structurally based and connected with the infrastructure system of urban networks. The complexity of the connection therefore immediately generated the need to reduce as much as possible the constraints generated by it. The second problem was the transport. While a car or even a ship once built in the factory moves by itself, a house cannot be built completely in the factory because the size would have made the transport completely impossible. On the other hand, moving the production process to the construction site meant not generating real economies of scale compared to traditional technologies. Today, in many ways these limitations are still the two central aspects of the problems related to the industrialization of the building process. In 1910, Thomas Edison patented an industrialized system that proposed standard types of two-storey houses built through a process that involved an onsite construction phase and an assembly of off-site prefabricated components to be chosen in a catalogue. The reinforced concrete structure was in fact built

Fig. 62. Thomas Edison in 1910s investigated the use of formwork molds that could repeatedly be used to create concrete houses. (source: www. treehugger.com, stable url: https://www.treehugger.com/ sustainable-product-design/ one-hundred-years-agothomas-edison-built-housesout-concrete.html)

216

ANNEX 4: TRACKING THE IDEA OF HYBRID MODULARITY IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY

Fig. 63. Buckmister Fuller’s Dymaxion House (1930). Factory manufactured kits, assembled on site, intended to be suitable for any site or environment and to use resources efficiently. A key design consideration of the design was ease of shipment and assembly. (source: www. archdaily.com )

on site with a system of prefabricated and standardized formwork, and with reusable machineries. The construction was subsequently completed with components made in the factory and assembled on-site. In fact it was not about having to transport the whole house but only the machineries and the formwork for the structure and, subsequently, the kit of components to be assembled and necessary for completion. Somehow Edison had already foreshadowed a “hybrid” system between an on-site “mother structure” and off-site production components as a solution to the problems of adaptation and connection to the site and transportation. In the early 30s of the 1900s Buckminster Fuller elaborated in several successive versions, the Dymazion House – a type of single-family dwelling composed of industrially produced elements in metal, conceived as a series of living spaces hung around a single central column that was at the same time foundation, structural support and plant collector. The “core column” was the heart of innovation. The conception of the product house was confirmed as a single-family type developed on a single floor and no longer on two levels as in the Edison system. But the most interesting insight that Fuller introduced was the concentration of most of the technological performance of the house in a single component, the core column. This “component” could be standardized, industrially produced. Its compact dimensions would also permit

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

217

easy transportation. The suspended mushroom structure of the house also allowed a concentration and simplification of all the connection issues with the ground in the base of the “core column”, standardizing a plug-in system both with structural and technological purposes. It is interesting to note that the innovation proposed by Buckminster Fuller was both technological and typological. In fact the internal distribution, divided space types in peripheral “empty” spaces and “equipped” spaces near the central core column. The system imagined by Buckminster Fuller was conceived as an assembly kit, designed as a set of components entirely produced in series, transported and installed on site, including the foundation system. The Lustron houses were produced and marketed in the United States in the late 40s in response to the lack of housing due to the return home of veterans of the Second World War. For the first time they were able to transform the principle of “assembly kit” introduced by Buckminster Fuller in a real industrial product available on the market. Only one truck was needed to transport all the steel components for the construction of a complete single-family home. The minimal maintenance and extreme durability of the material led many families to choose a Lustron house rather than a traditional wooden house. The Lustron House was available in four models all available with two or three bedrooms, one bathroom, and differed by the type of single living space or with a separate kitchen, and with different finishing levels of materials. The surfaces ranged from 66 square meters for the version with two bedrooms and combined living space, up to 106

Fig. 64. Lustron houses are prefabricated enameled steel houses developed in the postWorld War II era United States in response to the shortage of houses for returning GIs. (Source: www.pinterest.com )

218

ANNEX 4: TRACKING THE IDEA OF HYBRID MODULARITY IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY

square meters for the version with three bedrooms and a kitchen separated from the living room. Also in this case, technological innovation was combined with a strongly innovative typological proposal, based on a life style in which consumer goods linked to domestic and daily life activities were beginning to enter the collective experience. The house becomes a mass consumption good like the car, the kitchen becomes a work area to be equipped with an infinite variety of new domestic machinery from the refrigerator to the blender.

Fig. 65. Le Corbusier. Unitè de Abitation. Marsiglia 1945. (source: www.pinterest.com )

In the Unitè d’Abitation, Le Corbusier first imagines, on a conceptual level, a building made up of a frame structure supported by pilotis (like Buckminster Fuller’s idea) in which to place residential units designed as super pre-finished modules to be “inserted” into the main structure. This subdivision between structure and living components extends the “hybrid” approach of Edison. But this separation remains a pure conceptual distinction, as it doesn’t actually affect the production process. The main reason has been specifically identified in the structural redundancy of the construction system and in the dwelling dimensions that made the transportation of the entire housing module impossible. (Wallance 2015)[25]

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

219 Fig. 66. Peter Cook e Michael Webb. Archigram’s Plug in City, 1964. (source: www.archdaily.com )

In the 1960s the Archigramm group elaborated the “plug in city” project, which is the idea of a “hybrid” system, in which the structure interprets Buckminster Fuller ‘s mushroom scheme with the central plant core, up-scaling it to the level of a multi-storey building. Another important evolution is the possibility to insert the housing modules and slide them out (plug-in).[26] The key evolutionary point of this prefiguration becomes evident considering the impact on the urban landscape of a building process based on this “hybrid” concept. In fact this approach generates a sort of vertical urban infrastructure extended to the system of permanent building structures, combined with a dynamic “urban material” in constant movement, consisting of the dwelling modules that variously inhabit the permanent structures. From this point of view we cannot but mention the theoretical contribution of N. John Habraken on his interpretative vision of the urban organism seen as the set of “supports” and “fills” (supports and in-fills).[27] [25] Wallance D. (2015), Moving Parts: modular architecture in a flat world, CTBUH 2015 Conferences, New York. [26] Peter Cook e Michael Webb (1999) Archigram, Princeton Architectural Press; Sadler S. (2005) Archigramm: architecture without Architecture, MIT

Press; Tsigkouni S. (2014), Plug in City, Archigram 1964, Sheffield School of Architecture, manuscript, stable url: http:// www.academia.edu/6048928/ PLUG-IN_CITY-_Archigram [27] N. John Habraken, Variations, the Systematic Design of Supports, with J.T.Boekholt,

A.P.Thyssen, P.J.M. Dinjens: MIT Laboratory for Architecture and Planning; distributed by MIT Press, Cambridge, USA and London 1976. English translation by W. Wiewel and Sue Gibbons from the original Dutch publication: Denken in Varianten, Alphen a/d Rijn, Samson, 1974.

220

ANNEX 4: TRACKING THE IDEA OF HYBRID MODULARITY IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY

In the case of Habraken, this subdivision was the basis of a methodology that involved classic planning intervention only to support infrastructures, while in participatory planning identifying the instrument through which the “fills” defined their configuration. This approach is clearly linked to a precise historical moment in which “participation” was an expression of that “mass culture” that began to look for ways and forms of its own elaboration. However it still represents a very important theoretical acquisition for the purposes of our research. The idea that differentiated levels of design tools and methodologies on the building scale could define a fixed infrastructural part, and a flexible and dynamic system to adapt to the users’ needs for the remaining part of the building, represents a fundamental intuition. It is evident that this acquisition can not be ignored in starting a theoretical systematization of hybrid systems and in the definition of the expected innovation in terms of techno-typological performance requirements. The project Habitat 67 by Moshe Safdie, created for the Montreal Universal Exhibition of 1967 develops and investigates the architectural representation linked to the concept of prefabrication and modularity. The living units are made of reinforced concrete and because of their size and weight they were built in situ and mounted in a definitive and irreversible manner, as supporting elements resting on each other and anchoring themselves to supporting structures. Nevertheless the dynamism of the architectural configuration evokes and prefigures only on an aesthetic level, an interchangeable and extensible system in which the living modules can increase, decrease or change over time. Therefore the actual configuration built appears just like one of the infinite possible combinations allowed by the conceptual approach.[28] In the Capsule Tower Kisho Kurokawa (completed in Tokyo in 1972)[29] interprets the same Safdie concept in an ordered form and clearly separating for the first time the support structure from the living modules. In this case the housing modules have a completely manufactured concrete structure set-up in the factory and transported to the building site where they are simply positioned and connected. The apartments are very small to fit the transportable module (3.8 x 2.3 meters with height 2.1). The most interesting aspect of the building is that the living modules are actually plug-in modules, removable and replaceable. The system

[28] Safdie M., Gray J. (1967) Habitat; Moshe Safdie interviewed by John Gray, Montreal Tundra Book; Safdie M., Kettle J. (1971) Safdie: Beyond Habitat, MIT.

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

221

Fig. 67. Habitat 69 by Mosdie Safdie, Montreal 1967. (source: www.abitare.it )

222

Fig. 68. Kisho Kurokawa. Nakagin Capsule Hotel, Tokyo 1972 (source: www.domusweb.it )

ANNEX 4: TRACKING THE IDEA OF HYBRID MODULARITY IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY

HYBRID MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

223

generates a living organism according with the “metabolist architecture” approach defined by his author.[30] Although this has never happened and the possibility of demolishing the building has recently been evaluated, in fact it represents today the most advanced point in the prefiguration of a hybrid system concept consisting of a support structure built on-site and living modules produced offsite. When the possible demolition was evaluated in 2007, the still living designer proposed to maintain the support structure, extract the old 35 year old modules that were obsolete and contained asbestos, replacing them with new modules that would maintain the connection system, but made with new materials and with updated installations.[31] This proposal stopped the demolition, but the death of the designer did not allow carrying on the project of “modules replacement “. If this hypothesis had been realized, it would have been placed as the first case of the retrofitting of a hybrid building, in which more rapid life-cycle modules could have been replaced and updated with higher environmental performance technologies. It is interesting to note that the ownership structure of the building for which each capsule-apartment has a different owner, would allow each to individually replace the unit. A limitation of this building consists in the rigidity of the type offered: a micro apartment of 8.74 square meters which is reconfigured with movable furnishings such as those used in the cabins of ships or in railway compartments. This approach is clearly the result of the cultural climate of a precise historical period when the reduction to the minimum of the size of housing was seen as the main objective of design elaboration. The courageous project of Kurokawa, however, marked a fundamental moment in prefiguring and investigating a building made up of distinct building systems. Although functioning as a single building typology, such buildings can complete their different life-cycles, while allowing the replacement of the ones with more rapid obsolescence by the implementation of techno-typological adaptation without the need for invasive and disruptive interventions. There were many experiments on the flexibility of the types of housing in the 1970s that in Europe represented the last important period of urbanization and increase in the size of cities. It was the quantitative need to stimulate the typological research, strictly connected to production processes based on prefabrication, whose logic of reducing the spaces, repetitiveness and standardization of the typological solutions turned out to be in fact, the main ones also of design research.

[29] Minami N. (2015) Nakagin Capsule Tower, Kener Verlag. [30] Kurokawa K. (1977) Metabolism in Architecture, Littlehampton Book Services Ltd [31]Michiel van Lersel, Nagakin Capsule Tower, Shimbashi, Tokyo, su Failed Architecture, 11 settembre 2011. URL consultato il 18 dicembre 2015.

Joseph di Pasquale

Pubblications

Graduated magna cum laude in Architecture at Politecnico di Milano in 1991. Contract professor at Politecnico di Milano from 2009 to 2015. Storytelling and Film Direction studies at New York Film Academy in 2001. Principal and founder of architectural practice “JDP Architects”. PhD candidate at Politecnico di Milano in Hybrid Systems for Modular Industrialized Architecture since 2016. Member of the board for L’Arca International Magazine. Member of CTBUH Conucil of Tall Building and Urban Habitat. ORCID id.

PhD Founding

Co-Funding Companies

Co-Financing Company

Workshop Partner

Academic Partner