1
INTRO
1.1 T H E U R B A N C A S E p 5 •
T he P roblem
•
Oslo
1. 2 C A S E S T U D I E S p 13 •
3 C a s e s t u d i e s
•
P r i v a t e v s P u b l i c
•
D u n b a r ’s Nu m b e r
1. 3 W H E R E , W H AT A N D W H Y •
W here
•
P l a n s for S it e
p 25
1.4 S I T E p 31 •
S it e v i s it , w a l k t h r o u g h
•
S it e m a p p i n g
2
DESIGN
2 .1 O S L O P R E S E DE N C E p 47 •
Oslo Case St ud ies
2 . 2 M A S T E R P L A N p 59 •
Gr id
•
E l e m e nt s
•
S it e P l a n
2 . 3 L E V E L S O F P R I VAC Y •
A p a r t m e nt s
•
Ba lcony
•
Te r r a c e
•
Br idge
•
C o m m o n F l o or
•
Ho w m a n y p e o p l e s h a r e l e v e l s
2 .4 L I V I N G T O G E T H E R , A N D B E I N G T O G E T H E R
1
•
Sect ion
•
E levat ion
•
F l o or P l a n s
p 67
p 85
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PART
1
PRE- D ES IGN
PA RT 1 : THE URBAN CASE
4
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : THE URBAN CASE
THE URBAN CASE: AS DENSITY INCREASES, COMMUNITY DECREASES Many people living in cities today experience living for years in an apartment building, where we literally live on top of one another, and not know or even met any of the neighbors. If we already live together, shouldn’t it be natural to be together?
Living Together and Being Together
5
PA RT 1 : THE URBAN CASE
THE PROBLEM
A
fter my internship in the spring of 2013 I was sure I wanted to do a thesis that somehow addressed living, or what we call “home”. At this time I was frustrated, having lived here for a year, but feeling like I had mostly very shallow friendships. In addition I was baff led at how I did not know any of my neighbors whatsoever, there had been occasions where conversation had been attempted to little success. These events was always short and awkward, at first I accredited this to Scandinavian social quirks. However I soon realized that the stairwell I share with my neighbors is not made for interaction and hugely (maybe mostly) faulty in the social awkwardness taking place there. Terrible sound, tight, cold and always makes sure you have to look up or down at whom you’re trying to interact with. With increasing populations and massive migrations to urban centers people around the world live denser and denser every day. At the same time as population density increases somehow the sense of community is decreasing. The closer we live in cities today, the more distance we create to our neighbors. Higher walls, thicker doors, security systems and so on, we have become paranoid and skeptical to everyone at the same time as we only care about our self. Instead of feeling security in numbers, there is a “me against the world” mentality present in the way people think about security where they live. People living in cities often have friends and family living some distance from where they live. This coupled with feeling uncomfortable and/or unsafe in their own neighborhood, makes people take refuge in their apartments. This becomes their own safe place, where human interaction is replaced by socializing on social media or completely replaced by TV.
It is society at large that is mostly fault in this, and in ignoring it. Because of (capitalism) and commercialism, it is an overall pressure on the individual. How successful you are as an individual is seen as tantamount to success, with no concern for how society at large is doing. There is little to no concern for the success of a neighborhood, city or country long as you as an individual succeed in it. Architecture is a part of the problem in its own sense. In the same way individual success has become central in society at large it has become central in architecture. Modernism was born at a time where population densities in cities was reaching unprecedented heights, at the same time mass production and mass consumerism was an emerging lifestyle. So it was that in housing the masses emerging in cities the important thing became the individual, with a focus on the inside of the apartment and the view out the window. When society and residential architecture ignore something so fundamental as the fact that humans are social by nature, every other solution becomes a fix for the symptoms rather than for the actual problem.
“ THE SIZE OF GROUPS ARE LIMITED, IN ORDER FOR T H E M TO F U N C T I O N E AC H MEMBER MUST KNOW E AC H OT H E R W E L L
” “The innovation of loneliness” on primate group dynamics
6
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : THE URBAN CASE
“Facebook” by Pawel Kuczynski
Living Together and Being Together
7
PA RT 1 : O S LO
8
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : O S LO
O S LO : T H E FA ST E ST G R OW I N G C A P I TA L I N E U R O P E Although not a major capital in relationship to the cities of the world, Oslo is quickly growing as a result of good economy and open borders. Oslo however has the opportunity to shape its urban form differently.
Living Together and Being Together
9
PA RT 1 : O S LO
O S L O : A FA S T G R O W I N G C A P I TA L
Oslo is now one of the fastest growing capitals in Europe. Even with the intense urbanization around the world the last hundred years, Oslo has maintained relatively and sparsely populated, as has Norway in general. Today many are moving from towns and villages to live in Oslo where the opportunities might be more diverse. Because of open borders and high wages Norway is also seeing a large inf lux of immigrants, most of who settle in Oslo. Norway has been lucky in the sense that the nature is mostly untouched compared to other places. As a capital, Oslo also offers a surprising amount of nature to enjoy, with forests a short trip from anywhere in the city. If Oslo is to keep the natural beauty surrounding it today, and not succumb to urban sprawl, it will have to start build denser to meet this explosive growth. However, although Oslo might need to get denser population wise, the city has a great advantage in that it is relatively late in the big city development and therefore can be careful and try to not to go in the same traps as some other metropolises. Norway has the capability to meet this growth critical thinking and possibility to do things differently.
10
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : O S LO
It is especially important to be careful with the development because of the nature of Oslo’s population growth. If not careful, architecture can easily encourage so called “ghettos� rather than integration. Immigrants and firstgeneration children of immigrants are expected to make up 47 percent of Oslo by 2040, compared to the 28 percent it was in 2012. It will be incredibly important to make these new citizens feel like a part of where they live, and not feel like they have to make their own social groups. With Norwegians being notoriously hard to get close to, and the rise of social medias, architecture have to encourage social interactions or else Norway is in danger of becoming a over crowded place where everyone feel lonely and insecure.
Living Together and Being Together
11
PA RT 1 : CASE STUDIES
12
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDIES: S O M E T I M E S Y O U H AV E T O LO O K FA R T O U N D E R S TA N D W H AT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU I have learned from earlier experience that exploring and learning about another place can teach you new and surprising things about where you come from. This is why I looked a three places very different from Oslo. Three places that are incredibly dense population wise, considered ghettos and with a happy people as a result of strong community. From there I looked at what I learned in the context of Norway, and then looked at a theory that supports what I found.
Living Together and Being Together
13
PA RT 1 : CASE STUDIES
KOW LO O N WA L L E D C I T Y
Photo from 1973 as the unresticted multistory buildings
Arial photo from 1989 shows The Walled City how it looked
started to shape what would become known as The Walled
t o w a r d t h e e n d . ( Ta k e n f r o m t h e b o o k “ C i t y o f D a r k n e s s ” )
City
( Ta k e n f r o m t h e b o o k “ C i t y o f D a r k n e s s ” )
H I STO RY
SOCIAL
Kowloon Walled City started as a walled fortress. In 1898 it had about 700 inhabitants. During WWII the Japanese razed the walls for material. By 1973 there were about 10,000 inhabitants. This is when the uncontrolled building began. Politically after WWII the British were ademant to the chinese staying out of the fort, but at the same time wanted nothing to do with it. Hence the Walled City became neither under the British nor the Chinese and so exempt from laws and regulations. Run mostly by Chinese gangs known as the Triads, it also became a refuge for the Chinese escaping communist China. Without money or property, and in some cases medical licenses that were not accepted in their new home of Hong Kong, many saw the Walled City as their only hope for a new home.
G O V E R N E D B Y : Tr i a d s
A G E O F C O M M U N I T Y/ S L U M :
1973-1993
P O P U L AT I O N : 5 0 , 0 0 0 SIZE: 26.8 SQ KM
HOMES: 8,800 BUSINESSES: 1,000 R E N T: $ 8 . 24 a m o n t h ( 2 0 1 4 U S D) RELIGION: Mixed C U LT U R A L : M a j o r i t y f r o m C h i u C h o w a r e a i n C h i n a
Although the general concensus is that The Walled City was run by the Triads, the Chinese mafia, most people say they lived in peace. The Triads mostly ran the brothels, gambling dens and drug distributions. Although bad, old residents mostly say they were never bothered, and if they were mugged it was usually someone from the outside. Only reacurring problem that comes up is the heroin addicts. However a woman that grew up there said that if they gave her trouble as a kid, she could just scream and neighbors would be there in seconds. Although living conditions were bad a lot of people said they had a good relationship with their neighbors and that people usually helped eachother.
PEOPLE PER SQ KM: 1,920,000 REASONS FOR MOVING THERE: cheap rent, license not needed, no law enforcers
14
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : CASE STUDIES
KOW LO O N WA L L E D C I T Y : E X A M P L E Man doing his personal morning grooming at the only governmental water station within The Kowloon Walled City. As one of eight water station providing safe drinking water, and the only one within the city, it was often crowed with people waiting to wash clothes, themselves and to bring potable water home for cooking and drinking.
This is an example of where private and public becomes, in some ways becomes unclear, as activities often done in the privacy of the home is done in a public place out of necessity and circumstances.
Living Together and Being Together
15
PA RT 1 : CASE STUDIES
T O W E R O F D AV I D
Community meeting in the t o w e r.
Example of the unfinished structure.
V i e w o f T h e To w e r o f D a v i d a t s t r e e t l e v e l .
H I STO RY
SOCIAL
The work on Centro Financiero Confinanzas was started in January 1990, intended primarily as a luxurious office space and hotel. Even amid Caraca’s “wall street” district it was to stand out as a symbol of economic provess. The vision belonged to developer Jorge David Brillembourg Ortega who expected a big increase in demand for offices and hotel space within 4-5 years, his brother also joined him on his quest. However 3 years into the construction David Brillembourg passed away. A financial crisis in January of 1994 brought the construction to a stop indefinitely. It stood empty until 2007 when a group of people sought shelter during heavy rain that f looded the neighboring barrios. The amount of residents have steadily risen since then and is now at over 3000.
GOVERNED BY: Autocratic Democracy
A G E O F C O M M U N I T Y/ S L U M :
2007-present
P O P U L AT I O N : 3 , 0 0 0
FA M I L I E S : 7 5 0 BUSINESSES: ? R E N T: ? RELIGION: Christians C U LT U R A L : C a r a c a n s
The governing of the community is made up of levels of inf luence. At the very top and the ultimate decision maker is Alexander “el niño” Daza who is also the pastor of the community church located in the complex. Including his closest associates, they make up the innermost circle known as “la directiva”. Then there is a second circle of people working as intermediaries between the inner circle and the residents and as coordinators of functions like water distribution, the electric system, and facility cleaning. The third circle of leadership contains the f loor coordinators.
SIZE: ? PEOPLE PER SQ KM: ? REASONS FOR MOVING THERE: Housing shortage in Caracas, nearby Barrios unsafe.
16
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : CASE STUDIES
T O W E R O F D AV I D : E X A M P L E
New residents in The Tower of David henging out by their temporary bedrooms. This is how most new residents live as the arrive, while they gradually build their permanent residence in the building.
Although these women have a minimum opportunity for privacy through their tents, it is so small and minimal it is mostly used exclusivly for sleeping. Meanwhile the spaces where these tents are situated becomes common living rooms and an opportunity to meet and get to know future neighbors.
Living Together and Being Together
17
PA RT 1 : CASE STUDIES
D H A R AV I
Arial photo of Dharavi
Photo of famous laundry part of Dharavi, as space is sparse people basically live inbetween the drying clothes. Over 80% of Dharavi’s residents work within the slum.
H I STO RY
SOCIAL
Dharavi was a mangrove swamp inhabited by Koli fishing villages in the late 1800s. After a series of plagues in the 1880s, the British expelled all polluting industry from the center of Mumbai to the edge of the city, to Koliwadas. The swamp was filled with waste, allowing for more space for the early Dharavi. Some of the first to be moved here were communities of tanners and potters, as these professions were considered highly polluting. However, what is today is known as Dharavi, one of the world’s largest slums, took shape in the 1940s as the British left India and property was sold off. Today Dharavi consists mostly of two story, more permanent, buildings in the interior. Toward the edges more makeshift housing is found, but also some social housing project that can’t be described as much other than failures.
GOVERNED BY: Elders and leaders of communities
A G E O F C O M M U N I T Y/ S L U M : 1 9 4 0 s - p r e s e n t P O P U L AT I O N : B e t w e e n 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 a n d 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 S I Z E : 2 .1 7 S Q M PEOPLE PER SQ KM: between 276,497 and 460,829
F A M I L I E S : 5 7, 0 0 0 BUSINESSES: Over 15,000 R E N T: ? RELIGION: Mixed C U LT U R A L : M o s t l y I n d i a n a b b r e v i a t i o n s
Dharavi is more like a city than a single community in the way that it contains a collection of communities. Even though this creates great variations in living quality, many of these communities are very tight knit. They are relatively successful economically and take care of each other. Although they pack more people per square meter than almost anywhere else, in two level housing, and in living conditions that by many would be described as inhuman, they seem happier than most people living in cities. Another quality of Dharavi that is not often seen other places is that 85 percent (Slumming it 2010) of the habitants in Dharavi also works there. Many of these workers live where they work creating a very different view of privacy for some.
REASONS FOR MOVING THERE: For people moving to Mumbai from rural areas it provides a start to t h e l i f e i n t h e c i t y.
18
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : CASE STUDIES
D H A R AV I : E X A M P L E
A woman working on her pottery, the pottery communities are some of the oldest in Dharavi. They are succesful in selling their crafts and are known as very tightly knit communities.
The places where the pottery is burnt and produced is f lanked by the two-story residences of the pottery makers, effectively working as courtyards where most socializing happens. Since it can get crowded in the small houses this space functions as workspace, playground, community meeting place and more. The space can oscillate between private and public from day to day and often during the day.
Living Together and Being Together
19
PA RT 1 : P R I VAT E V S P U B L I C
P R I VA T E V S P U B L I C : Black and white or gradient
PU BL IC
OT H E R ACQ UAIN T E N CE S PUBLIC F RIE N DS AN D E X T E N DE D FAMILY CLO S E F RIE N DS AN D FAMILY
Gradient
P R I VAT E
R E S IDE N TS
PU BL IC
Black and White PRIVAT E
There are many situations and conditions that contribute to the sense of community found in Kowloon, Tower of David and Dharavi. However, the most basic underlying condition is the different relationship to what is private and what is public these places’ architecture creates. The architecture, often grown out of need rather than designed, creates a more blurred line between public and private. Places and activities often thought of as private is done in the public domain, and therefore create and, at times, gently force social interactions.
20
In contrast, the case in cities is often a very black and white view. The apartment is the private, and what is outside of that is considered public. This can make the apartment into a sort of satellite, disconnected in a way from its surroundings. This is a private piece of our lives with every other part located some distance away, our concern somewhere else as we use social media and such to bridge these distances on a daily bases. Therefore putting our concerns and the people we care about away from the home, and at the same time relying on shallow and fragile relationships as we communicate only in a most edited way.
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : P R I VAT E V S P U B L I C
P R I VA T E V S P U B L I C : Tw o e x a m p l e s i n S c a n d i n a v i a
RV Cam pi ng i n Nor way
Camping RVs with attached tent and porch where one experience a transcendence walking from part to part you move between privacy levels that can be easy to percieve at some times and harder at others, and at times act f luidly.
Ap a rt ment i n A ar hu s C
Common entrance situation in urban apartments where passing over the threshold, you step from the very public to the very private.
Living Together and Being Together
21
PA RT 1 : DUNBAR’S NUMBER
DUNBAR’S NUMBER explanation
One theory that supports what was observed in the case studies is known as Dunbar’s number. This is the number limit of human social relationships. When transgressed, it becomes too much for us to know enough about each person we interact with and how they relate to other people. Steven Dunbar started his development of Dunbar’s number with social research of large primates. He discovered that if these groups went over a certain number (fifty in this case), tension would increase and the group would dissolve, eventually reforming as two separate groups. Dunbar came to the conclusion that, as social animals, primates need a certain amount of time spent every day (mostly grooming in the case of primates) to know each other intimately enough for the group to function. Dunbar found that the same theory applies to humans, but because of our ability to communicate with speech we increased this number to about 150 (150 is what is known as Dunbar’s Number. There are varying theories on the exact number, but they usually vary around 150). The most important points I drew from this is the fact that, although inherently social, humans have a social limit. Meaning that in crowded places like cities we get socially overwhelmed and might feel lonely because too many people surround us.
As socializing creatures, humans tend to work in groups. However intimate knowledge of the other members are neccessary to keep the group intact.
If the group grows too large, the relationships become too superficial and without understanding f o r e a c h o t h e r, t e n s i o n s m a y a r i s e a n d t h e g r o u p collapses.
Since time socializing correlates to the strength of a relationship, this suggests that levels of relationships would be natural. We would have the strongest relationship to the people we see every day, and a more platonic relationship to those we see a couple times a week and so on.
22
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : DUNBAR’S NUMBER
DUNBAR’S NUMBER city hive and loner
Example of “loner ” animal, the hawk.
In our apartments, humans are c l o s e r t o “ l o n e r ” a n i m a l s , s o c i a l l y.
Example of “hive” animal, bees.
I n t h e c i t y, h u m a n s a r e c l o s e r t o “ h i v e ” a n i m a l s , s o c i a l l y.
Inherently humans belong inbetween. Individual and intelligent enough to not belong in a hive, at the same time as we take comfort in numbers.
Steven Dunbar and his Dunbar’s number, shows that humans belong in a particular place socially. In nature we can see some extreme examples of how different species belong in different places on a social scale. On one end you have the loner. Often intelligent hunters, that is in very small groups or only interacts with other individuals during mating season and such. On the other end we have the hive, often insects that in big numbers, with individual low intelligence, work together like one bigger organism.
Living Together and Being Together
Cities are an example of both of these extremes, where in our apartments humans can act like “the loner” while outside in the city we are just one out of many, a part of “the hive”. But Dunbar’s number shows us that we are social creatures, humans find comfort in numbers, at the same time as if the group gets to big relationships get shallower and we start to loose individuality. Humans belong in between, we are group animals, but city dwelling don’t cater to this.
23
PA RT 1 : S I T E : W H E R E , W H AT A N D W H Y
24
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : W H E R E , W H AT A N D W H Y
SITE: W H E R E , W H AT A N D W H Y The situation of the site I chose can be a little complicated as the area is scheduled for redevelopment and I created my project on a site within plans for this area.
Living Together and Being Together
25
PA RT 1 : S I T E : W H E R E , W H AT A N D W H Y
SITE: Where The site is located at Ulven, Oslo, Norway. It is on the East side of Oslo about (4 km?) from the Opera house and Oslo centrum. Both bus and subway can be accessed within a short walk from the site. The area today is mainly industrial and storage space, but with a quickly growing Oslo residential, commercial and office development is planned for Ulven. I chose the site because it is centrally located, and from where it is, easy to reach both downtown and Oslo’s surrounding areas. Since the site is part of a bigger proposal that also incorporates offices and commercial opportunities, it gives me room to concentrate on the residential part. I also chose the site because it is located within a region of Oslo that is having a relatively big inf lux of immigrants.
MAP: North Europe
26
MAP: Norway
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : W H E R E , W H AT A N D W H Y
MAP: Oslo
MAP: Site
Living Together and Being Together
27
PA RT 1 : S I T E : W H E R E , W H AT A N D W H Y
SITE Plans for the site
There are plans developed for the site as a part of a proposal for a bigger development of Ulven put together by LPO architects. For this project, the main residential part was used, while the project also treat the rest of LPO’s proposal as what exists. Some estimations and numbers were also based on documents provided by LPO.
LPO’s proposal for Ulven
28
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : W H E R E , W H AT A N D W H Y
500
N
0
500
N
0
500
N
0 Existing buildings that will be demolished
Planned
My site
Living Together and Being Together
29
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
30
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
SITE: M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S This consists of two parts, a walkthrough of the site. Done in October from the subway station to the site, this was done to get a feel for the site. The second part consists of interesting situations around the site, existing and planned.
Living Together and Being Together
31
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
SITE VISIT
32
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
Arriving at the site on the main road, coming from the subway, the first thing we see is a big worn concrete structure. It works as a car inpound and bus park among other things. The building is going to be thorn down.
Living Together and Being Together
33
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
On the south side of the site is where the only industrial buildings that will not get thorn down is located. Here the old train tracks that served the industrial area are still visible.
34
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
The train tracks on the north side of the site, act as a very strong boarder for the site. At the same time however it also will become a divider between residential and industrial as new development starts.
Living Together and Being Together
35
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
36
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
Industrial
0
Living Together and Being Together
500
N
37
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
Offices (planned)
0
38
500
N
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
Mixed (planned)
0
Living Together and Being Together
500
N
39
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
Recycling plant
0
40
500
N
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
Tr a f f i c /c i r c u l a t i o n
0
Living Together and Being Together
500
N
41
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
Quality Hotel 33
0
42
500
N
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 1 : S I T E : M A P P I N G A N D A N A LY S I S
K u b e n Yr k e s A r e n a
0
Living Together and Being Together
500
N
43
PART
2
D ESIGN
PA RT 2 : O S LO P R E S E D E N C E
46
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : O S LO P R E C E D E N C E
O S LO P R E C E D E N C E : THREE OLD PROMINENT RESIDENTIAL HOUSING T Y P E S , A N D T H E N E W. To understand the existing Norwegian flat designs better, I visited a few different ones and chose four to take a closer look at how well they seemed to work and feel. I then compared this with the apparent levels of privacy, and the levels relationships to eachother and the degree to which they were successful. The most functioning community wise, was clearly the new development of Kvaernerbyen, therefore there are several “instances� adopted into my project from this development.
Living Together and Being Together
47
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
OSLO CASE STUDIES: Closed Courtyard
The closed courtyard is a very common apartment type in Oslo. These buildings can be found in many areas of downtown Oslo.
These enclosed courtyards was ment to give its residents a break from the city while in the city. It works as a nicer view from residents’ windows, but rarly see any activity other than regular lawn mowing and the ocational group of kids.
48
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
OSLO CASE STUDIES: C l o s e d C o u r t y a r d Va r i a t i o n
The closed courtyard variation is an iteration of the first example, not as common, the difference in shape seems to come more from circumcises than design.
Similar to the prior one. However, the fact that the structures surrounding the courtyard is broken up makes it feel more welcoming and open, while giving the courtyard a sense of protection.
Living Together and Being Together
49
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
OSLO CASE STUDIES: Suburban Flats
The Ammerud f lats, built in the 50s and 60s. These apartment types were built extensively, often surrounding downtown Oslo, as housing was dearly needed.
Although many examples of this building types come with extensive surrounding green spaces, these spaces feel almost like public parks. Parks with hundreds of apartments looking right at you when you venture on to them.
50
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
OSLO CASE STUDIES: Tu r b i n v e i e n ( Kv a e r n e r b y e n )
Turbinveien (Kvaerner byen) is a newer development close to Oslo Centrum. The whole area is new construction, giving way for building types and space inbetween, not common to Oslo yet.
A more modern and improved version of example two, this one though is a little more open and raised. This gives gives a hightened sense of privacy without shutting people out. In addition the space in between these courtyards become an even more public space as another step before the completely public street.
Living Together and Being Together
51
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
OSLO CASE STUDIES: Tu r b i n v e i e n , r a i s e d c o u r t y a r d
52
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
In Turbinveien small parks shared between small clusters of apartments are raised creating a sense of privacy while still keeping it welcoming and easily accessible rather than closed off. In my project I similarly raised smaller parks and placed the buildings on top of them to create outdoor places that feels like they belong to the occupants of the buildings while being open to the public.
Living Together and Being Together
53
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
OSLO CASE STUDIES: Building type and elements adopted in project (numerous vertical buildings)
54
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
Turbinveien’s buildings surround courtyard-like outdoor spaces, shielding them to some degree from wind and such. The buildings are individual vertical elements with space in between, rather than being a continuous closed off structure. Resulting in opening up and making the courtyards more inviting. At the same time this breaks up the surfaces with windows and balconies facing the outdoor spaces, decreasing the feeling of being in the spotlight while inhabiting the space. In my project I choose vertical buildings to avoid creating big “walls” to the surroundings and break up facades as not to create the feeling that too many people could be watching. In addition the vertical building type works well for creating different levels of social size and interactions.
Living Together and Being Together
55
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
OSLO CASE STUDIES: Building type and elements adopted in project (In between)
56
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : O S LO C A S E S T U D I E S
In Turbinveien small corridors occur between individual building clusters. Although they seem to mostly operate as circulation, where cars can’t travel, it creates an interesting space that makes it clear you are walking into a neighborhood, but at the same time feeling almost completely public. In my project I utilized a similar instance. However, I expanded on this by making it a full sized public park, that is open to everyone, but meant to feel like it belongs to the people that live there as the park is situated in between the apartment buildings surrounded by the smaller, raised parks.
Living Together and Being Together
57
PA RT 2 : MASTERPLAN
58
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : MASTERPLAN
MASTERPLAN: 45째 GRID, BUILDING ELEMENTS AND SITE PLAN
Living Together and Being Together
59
PA RT 2 : MASTERPLAN
MASTERPLAN: Grid
An important part of structuralizing the social sizes and interactions are the terraces. These spaces are shared between small clusters of apartments, essentially creating miniature neighborhoods. These spaces appear on every second f loor and face different ways intermittingly. Because of this, a grid was made from the size of the buildings, then rotated 45 degrees to allow all the “terraces” to face as much south as possible.
60
SE SW
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : MASTERPLAN
MASTERPLAN: Elements
Along the most trafficked road the ground f loor contains retail and parking to support this function. Additional parking for residents is situated on the basement level.
Along the less trafficked road f lanking the site’s south side, there are cafes and parking. These two structures follow the grid in a way that they create smaller pockets more fitting for outdoor seating. Also these buildings have parking for residents on the basement level.
The remaining ground level structures contain the rest of the resident parking. In addition they serve the function of closing of the shapes that are the “public park”. Following the grid they, they divide the space in the middle of the site into, the green park and the concrete park.
Living Together and Being Together
61
PA RT 2 : MASTERPLAN
MASTERPLAN: Elements
With the ground f loor down, the buildings were placed on top along the grid, and adjusted as to not block less sunlight for other buildings.
To create a horizontal connection between the vertical structures sky bridges were added. Each building has two of these connecting them to the adjacent structures. While these bridges serve as a connection and circulation between buildings, it’s most important function is as a meeting place, intended to create relationships also across buildings.
62
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : MASTERPLAN
MASTERPLAN: Elements
Living Together and Being Together
63
PA RT 2 : MASTERPLAN
MASTERPLAN: Siteplan
1
64
1.
Green park concisting of green slopes with grass and trees.
2.
Smaller area is a “concrete park” concisting of a basketball court and small skatepark.
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : MASTERPLAN
1:2000
Living Together and Being Together
N
2
65
PA RT 2 : L E V E L S O F P R I VAC Y
66
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : L E V E L S O F P R I VAC Y
L E V E L S O F P R I VAC Y : A R C H I T E C T O N I C A L LY C R E AT I N G S O C I A L SCALES To avoid simply adding space and functions to try and create community, adding cost and the overall volume at the same time, space was relocated from the apartments. In Norway today, people often have an extra amount of space specifically for that once or twice a day we get people over for a special occasion. This space would therefore function better as shared spaces instead giving the residents the possibilities for even bigger gatherings those rare times, while at the same time giving the residents something in common. A mix of LPO’s proposal and examples of various projects being built in Oslo helped decide the sizes of the apartments and how much space would be relocated. For each size, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom, the average size was found in projects being developed and then looked at how space could be removed from these. From this little exercise the small apartments contained in the project was made.
Living Together and Being Together
67
PA RT 2 : A PA RT M E N T S
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT
A PA R T M E N T S : 1 bedroom existing example
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT
55 SQM
-20 SQM
35 SQM
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT 1:200
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT
68
PA RT 2 : A PA RT M E N T S
A PA R T M E N T S : 1 bedroom example in my project
These apartment types lost the most area as these small apartments are the likeliest to contain just one person, and therefore has the biggest need to be outside the apartment to socialize. Despite the small size, one bedroom has been kept rather than making it a studio as completely private space might be even more important because of the social intentions of this project. The living room and kitchen is minimal to provide the minimum, but to encourage use of the shared kitchen and other shared spaces.
-
-
35 SQM
1:200
Floor 3 Level 4
Living Together and Being Together
69
PA RT 2 : A PA RT M E N T S
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT
A PA R T M E N T S : 2 bedroom existing example
80 SQM PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT
-30 SQM
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT 50 SQM
1:200
70
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : A PA RT M E N T S
A PA R T M E N T S : 2 bedroom example in my project The two bedroom apartments also lose a good percentage of their area, less than the one bedrooms, as these are more likely to be inhabited by multiple individuals. Since there is less chance someone will live here alone they most likely will get some social interaction within their apartment. Because of this the 2 bedroom apartments have a little more living room space and enough space for the residents to eat together.
50 SQM
1:200
Living Together and Being Together
71
PA RT 2 : A PA RT M E N T S
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT
A PA R T M E N T S : 3 bedroom existing example
95 SQM
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT
-25 SQM
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT 70 SQM
1:200
72
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : A PA RT M E N T S
-
A PA R T M E N T S : 3 bedroom example in my project The three bedroom apartments clearly lose the least percentage of area. As there probably will be a minimum of three individuals living in these apartments it means that they will have a network of social interactions starting inside the apartments. Because of this the living room is again bigger and with an extension to the dining table, everyone can eat together. However, with family and friends over it will still get tight so that also residents in these apartments is encouraged to use the common spaces.
70 SQM
1:200
Living Together and Being Together
73
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: Balcony
The most private shared space is the balcony. It is shared only with one other apartment and is an outdoor area.
74
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: Balcony
1
2
1.
The middle of the balcony is a little wider to create little more space and a visual queue as to where the “private� balcony ends and where the shared one begins.
2.
The balcony is pretty plain architectonically to allow the residents to personalize it.
Living Together and Being Together
75
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: Te r r a c e
Intended as a shared terrace and alternative bigger kitchen/dining room. These spaces’ are intended for the tenants to form an “inner circle” of relationships in the context of the whole project, a place where they can create closer relationships that make them feel safe and secure enough to meet even more people.
76
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: Te r r a c e
4
2
1
3
1.
The circulation spaces are a little bigger than normal and contain benches for casual conversation when coming, leaving or while waiting.
2.
A stairwell in the middle of the terrace space act as a visual and physical connection between the people living on the second level and the shared space below.
3.
The main feature of the open terrace space is a couple of picnic tables that can be moved and configured for the need at the time.
4.
Attached to each terrace space is a room with a bigger kitchen and space to seat a good amount of dinner guests.
5.
“Light shaft�, helping to guide some extra light down from above this space draws people towards the opening between these terrace spaces, allowing for a connection and interaction between these groups.
Living Together and Being Together
77
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: Bridge
Its most important function at first might seem to be circulation, however there would be minimal need for the residents to use this as circulation if they don’t know or have business with someone in another building. Therefore this space is mainly meant as an opportunity to interact with people from other buildings extending the social network.
78
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: Bridge
3
2 1
4
1.
One of the biggest features on these bridges are planters intended for residents to be able to grow whatever they want in.
2.
Seating for residents to enjoy the greenery and the view outside.
3.
Each end of these bridges has glass in the f loor as well as in the ceiling. This is foremost to avoid making dark corners under the bridges, but it also work as an additional interesting feature of the bridge. A place young and old can observe the daily bustle far below.
4.
There is an open path leading straight through the bridge for anyone that simply want to use it for circulation.
Living Together and Being Together
79
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: Common floor
This is foremost the pedestrian entry to the building and a foyer. In addition it is a place where you can meet people from the same building, but whom you might not share any other space with.
80
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: Common floor
2
3
4 1
1
Copy of {3D}
1.
Located here is the laundry room, rather open, for visual contact with other acquaintances that might be occupying the f loor at the same time.
2.
A lounge area dominated by chairs and tables and with windows to the park. A place eat lunch, have coffee with a friend or just to hang out.
3.
A smaller room similar to the lounge area, except closed off, smaller and intended for work or homework.
4.
A rather large open space with room for people to stand off to the side for a quick chat when running into people they know.
Living Together and Being Together
81
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
LEVELS: How many people share levels
2x
8x
32x
1
Copy of {3D}
4048x
82
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LEVELS
The “levels of privacy” or “levels of social scale” act as a transition between the apartment where we have the most privacy and individuality and the city where we might disappear as one of the masses. They also allow us to be part of a social group, where humans genetically are the most comfortable. The fact that there are many levels lets an individual choose a place they might be comfortable or try something outside their comfort zone while feeling safe. The balcony is the only space the residents are, in a way, forced to share. However, this is also intended as the “handshake” into the community for new residents. It strongly encourages a new resident to meet their neighbor that probably already knows other neighbors and is able to introduce them. Hopefully feeling safer from knowing their neighbor, new residents might feel safer about meeting or being introduced to other neighbors in the terrace space. This space can be like a porch, where new residents can get the chance to greet or have a barbecue with their new neighbors without having to go as far as to invite them home. When feeling safe and included with the immediate neighbors it will be considerably easier for a new resident introduce themselves and start a conversation with someone from another building on one of the bridges. Whether while trying out their green thumbs, enjoying the view, or simply walking along, making new acquaintances can happen anywhere when residents feel safe and secure. And as confident new residents, quickly feeling as a part of the community, they make other residents and visitors feel welcome as well as they might be ready to chat or help another friendly neighbor. Well at least that’s the idea…
Living Together and Being Together
83
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
84
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER: PLANS AND SECTIONS
Living Together and Being Together
85
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
SECTION 1:200
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
E L E VAT I O N 1 : 2 0 0
87
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
L I V I N G TO G E T H E R , A N D B E I N G TO G E T H E R : 1 s t F l o o r ( c o m m o n f l o o r/e n t r a n c e )
88
N
1:200
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
L I V I N G TO G E T H E R , A N D B E I N G TO G E T H E R : 2nd Floor
Floor 1
N
1:200
evel 2
Living Together and Being Together
89
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
L I V I N G TO G E T H E R , A N D B E I N G TO G E T H E R : 3rd Floor
-
90
1:200
N
Floor 2
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
L I V I N G TO G E T H E R , A N D B E I N G TO G E T H E R : 4th Floor
Living Together and Being Together
1:200
N
Floor 3
91
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
L I V I N G TO G E T H E R , A N D B E I N G TO G E T H E R : 5th Floor
N
1:200
Floor 4
92
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
L I V I N G TO G E T H E R , A N D B E I N G TO G E T H E R : Conclusion
I found the idea of humans being comfortable in certain social scales incredibly interesting, and also hard to find precedence in projects dealing with exactly this. An example is concepts of creating architecture for the human scale. Sometimes this has the affect of also creating human social scale. But I believe that if a concern of human social scale is applied as a foundation in architecture practice, our tolerance for things such as architectural scale will be bigger. Because, as this will make it easier for community and social interaction to happen, so will it make people more tolerant to their surroundings. From the case studies I looked at it indeed seems more important, for humans to be happy, to be a part of a strong community than adequate sunlight or sanitary conditions. When I began my thesis I thought I would make the most complete project in my years as an architect student, and gain an understanding for a specific area. Instead I feel I found a beginning. It became a chance for me to explore a theory that seemed very interesting to me. A concept I’m excited to explore further as I end my time as a student of school and start my time as a student of architecture out in “the real world.”
Living Together and Being Together
93
PA RT 2 : LIVING TOGETHER, AND BEING TOGETHER
L I V I N G TO G E T H E R , A N D B E I N G TO G E T H E R : Wo r k C i t e d 1.
Girard, Greg, and Ian Lambot. City of Darkness: Life in Kowloon Walled City. Chiddingfold: Watermark, 1993. Print.
2.
Baan, Iwan. Torre David: Informal Vertical Communities. Zürich: Lars Müller, 2013. Print.
3.
The Vertical Village: Individual, Informal, Intense. Rotterdam: NAI, 2012. Print.
4.
Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. 6th ed. London: Island, 2011. Print.
5.
Cohen, Shimi. “The Innovation of Loneliness.” YouTube. YouTube, 17 July 2013. Web.
6.
Dunbar, Robin. “Can the Internet Buy You More Friends?” YouTube. YouTube, 21 Mar. 2012. Web.
7.
Turke, Sherry. “Connected, but Alone?” TED.com., Feb. 2012. Web.
8.
“City of Imagination: Kowloon Walled City 20 Years Later.” YouTube. Wall Street Journal, 2 Apr. 2014. Web.
9.
“Kowloon Walled City Documentary.” YouTube., 29 July 2010. Web.
10. “Kevin McCloud: Slumming It (2010) - Ep1.” YouTube., 3 Dec. 2012. Web. 11. “The World’s Tallest Slum: Caracas’ Notorious Tower of David.” YouTube. Vocativ, 1 Aug. 2013. Web. 12. “The Tower of David: Venezuela’s Vertical Slum - Newsnight.” YouTube. BBC Newsnight, 7 May 2014. Web. 13. “Don’t Believe Facebook; You Only Have 150 Friends.” NPR. NPR, 5 June 2011. Web. <http:// www.npr.org/2011/06/04/136723316/dont-believe-facebook-you-only-have-150-friends>. 14. Myths and Facts about Affordable/high Density Housing. Rep.: California Planning Roundtable. Web. <http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/mythsnfacts.pdf>. 15. Berglund, Nina. “Immigration Drives Oslo’s Growth.” Norway’s News in English., 14 Mar. 2012. Web. <http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/03/14/immigration-drives-oslos-growth/>. 16. “All Placemaking Is Creative: How a Shared Focus on Place Builds Vibrant Destinations.” Project for Public Spaces. Web. <http://www.pps.org/reference/placemaking-as-community-creativityhow-a-shared-focus-on-place-builds-vibrant-destinations/>. 17. Eriksen, Arild. “Pollen - Åpne Hus.” Issuu. Web. 18. <http://issuu.com/eriksenskajaa/docs/pollen_01/1>. 19. Eriksen, Arild. “Pollen No 2 - Bofellesskap.” Issuu. Web. <http://issuu.com/eriksenskajaa/docs/ pollen_no_2/1>. 20. LPO Architects, various project documents on Ulven development proposal. 94
Joakim Jørgensen Thesis 2014/2015