PARKING HOMELINESS In the studio Matter Space Structure each year focuses on a specific material. During the fall semester of 2013 the material was wood with emphasise massive wood construction. In addition to the material focus a design assignment was given: to design a compact living for young people. The design proposals were intended to be presented as pavilions at an exhibition in connection to the fair Wood Fusion in September 2014 at Svenska M채ssan (The Swedish Exhibition and Congress Center) in Gothenburg. The pavilions should show alternative new ways to produce affordable, compact living using (and exposing) wooden constructions. Another topic that was brought up was accessibility, wheelchair regulations might be a problem when trying to make compact living. Traditional wheelchair accessibility was not a demand for the assignment, instead we had contact with both the Rehab Centre at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and GIL (Gothenburg Cooperative for Independent Living) to test ideas challenging the traditional wheelchair norms. The course schedule was divided into three phases: a concept, a design and a presentation phase. Through the concept and design phases multiple proposals developed which then turned into one, individual design proposal in the presentation phase. On the eight upcoming pages my final design proposal Parking Homeliness is presented and after that follows a shorter presentation of different phases, leading to the proposal, plus a personal reflection.
Presentation model (scale 1:50) showing the four housing variants
Parking Homeliness A compact living dilemma: Storage vs Space
Living compact will inevitably raise the question of storage. Smart solutions can maximize the use of storage space but the fact still remains that the amount of belongings we want to store effects our need of storage space. In other words: the more stuff we have the higher percentage of our living space is occupied by storage. There is said that living compact is living sustainable but sustainable living can also be about reducing consumption. Therefore Compact living needs not only smart solutions for effective storage but storage space should also be possible to transform into living space. To zoom out a level densification of cities is often brought up to be a sustainable alternative. Densification means more people on the same area and also here we can see the connection between storage and living space. This project has more specifically looked into the conflict and connection between “storage space� of cars and living space.
1: 2:
1.
1
P-hus Aveny today The façade turned into 45 compact living apartments
2.
parking homeliness matter space structure
P-hus Aveny
By Södra Vägen, opposite to Heden, and 50 meters from Avenyn P-hus Aveny is located. P-hus Aveny is an eight stories high parking garage with 470 parking spaces. The garage is seldomly full to more than 50% and the fact that an underground garage is being planned at Heden (across the street) would probably lead to that the need for P-hus Aveny would decrease even more in the future. This project investigates the possibility to make use of the façade facing Södra Vägen for Compact living-units. By making use of an existing structure the building costs can be kept low, which opens for something as rare as affordable compact housing units in an extremely central location. The garage is already equipped with accessible elevators, electricity and plumbing can easily be added and adapted to living conditions.
The garage would still function with only a few parking spaces lost. This is possible since the façade towards Södra Vägen is used as a driving lane, which is complemented by a driving lane on the opposite side (towards Lorensbergsgatan) and a central lane. Using the lane towards Södra Vägen for housing would therefore not affect the transportation in any negative way. On the contrary the moving pattern of the garage would be easier to catch with the single transportation spiral. In addition to this the façade is not a part of the structural system (the closest load bearing beams are placed 6 meters from the façade) so to replace the façade with living units would not affect the structural system of the building.
1.
1: 2:
The Wood Fusion ‘14 Exhibition
In September 2014 an exhibition concerning compact, affordable living for young people will be held in Gothenburg. The exhibition will be a part of the Wood Fusion Fair at Svenska Mässan (The Swedish Exhibition and Congress Centre) and the aim is that 10 pavilions will be manufactured in wood, addressing different aspects and solutions for young, compact living. The pavilions are to attract both visitors from Svenska Mässan and the citizens of Gothenburg. The initial proposal for the exhibition site is Näckrosdammen, behind Götaplatsen and close to Korsvägen and Svenska Mässan. Although the site would be quite central Näckrosdammen still is a bit detached from the rest of the city. With this in mind I instead propose the placement of the pavilions to be along Södra Vägen. The exhibition would start at Korsvägen and end up at Heden where the exhibition placement of garage pavilions could be the same as the real intended context for the permanently built housings for compact living presented in this project.
Section of P-hus Aveny in present appearance with its moving pattern Section of P-hus Avenyn with the proposed housing units and the new, simplifying, transporting pattern (scale 1:200)
10.
8. 9. 4.
6.
2. 5.
3. 1. 7.
2.
Joakim Sätterman MPARC, Chalmers | 2013
Site plan over central Gothenburg between Liseberg and the moat. 1. Liseberg 2. Svenska Mässan 3. Korsvägen 4. Södra vägen 5. Götaplatsen 6. Avenyn 7. Näckrosdammen 8. Heden 9. P-hus Aveny (proposed site) 10. The moat
2
Building concept
The housing units
Each garage level is subdivided into 15 parts resulting in a module width of 2.2 meters. The smallest unit is the size of one module with the interior width of 1.6 meter, containing the most basic needs of a home.
The largest unit consists of four modules in two levels. This alternative would also suit to be shared. It is still a quite compact living but the fact that it is two levels contributes to an enhanced feeling of spaciousness.
Adding an adjacent module and removing the dividing wall creates a larger housing unit, with larger living space. The living module can be placed either above or beside the basic module. By placing the living part above a narrow loft studio apartment is created. If the living area instead is placed on the side a variant with the dimensions possible to provided full wheelchair accessibility is created.
The functional wall, which is basically the entire smallest unit, makes it possible to prepare each garage module with holes for plumbing through the floor slab that fits for the different unit sizes. By slightly shifting the distance of the plumbing holes relative to the garage faรงade the overhang will differs between the units resulting in a more varied faรงade expression.
The housing units are made in massive wood and designed so they can be manufactured in parts in a factory, assembled on spot and put into place using a crane. To create a variety in the faรงade and to attract different groups of costumers the compact housings are offered in different sizes and varieties. In the same time, to simplify manufacturing, there are similarities to the different units. All units cantilever, in different amount, from the garage structure. The cantilevering part is held in place by the two massive walls of each unit. The part that is within the garage structure has a construction height of 2.1 meters, to fit under the beams, while the cantilevering part has a construction height of 2.6 meters, the full height between two garage levels. The housings are built as individual units, which make it possible to move or make changes on a unit without affecting the others. This can e.g. mean that the young person can bring their housing unit if they move to another location.
Building Concept:
3
A module system that creates multiple housing variants and a varied faรงade
Faรงade view (scale 1:200)
parking homeliness matter space structure
compact - a housing collection
compact micro
compact medium
compact micro loft
compact deluxe
Anna just got her first apartment on her own. She is outgoing, active and loves to be in the middle of the city life. Her favourite spot in the apartment is the deep window niche where she sits on the borderline between home and the city.
John is a musician who likes to live sustainable in a compact living. In the Micro Loft he can fit everything he needs. He loves the loft that he has turned in to a little studio.
Joakim S채tterman MPARC, Chalmers | 2013
Erik is an athletic student who found his accessible, central and yet compact apartment. From the apartment he is close to both the university and the swim training at Valhalla-badet. An extra plus is how easy it also is to access his car, parked on the same level as his apartment.
Karin and Amir recently moved in to their first joint apartment. The 34 m2 fits everything they need and the fact that it is in two levels prevents them from feeling that they are disturbing each other occasionally when they need some time on their own.
4
compact micro 8.5 m2 18 m3
Compact micro consists of the functional wall also recuring in the larger versions. A combined living, dining and working area appears in the deep window niche where the nearest lower cabinet door can be folded up to become a table. The bed is hidden in the ceiling of the apartment’s cantilevering part. When lowered down it rests on the window niche and a pair of foldable legs on the opposite end.
The functional wall
The functional wall consists of toilet, kitchen and storage. The kitchen and storage part is built by standard cabinet modules, which make it easy to alternate after personal needs. The intended proposal saves space with pullout stovetop and working area. By doing that the space directly above can be used and when not in use the kitchen will be more discreet. Additionally the pullout parts are functional from an accessible wheelchair aspect. The compact toilet is hidden behind a frosted wall and sliding door. The big sliding door makes it possible to move from a wheelchair to the toilet seat without taking the wheelchair in to the bathroom. Plan (scale 1:50)
5. 2. 1.
4. 3.
6. 7.
8.
9.
The functional wall with proposed functions placing 1. Fold up table 2. Pullout working space 3. Pullout stove 4. Oven 5. Pullup shutter with sink 6. Pullout fan 7. Fridge/freezer 8. Washing machine 9. Toilet
Section (scale 1:50)
Scale 1:50
SKALA 1:500
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
5
50
parking homeliness matter space structure
compact micro loft 13.5 m2 37 m3
Compact Micro Loft is a narrow yet spacious apartment. It has the same features as Compact Micro but in addition to that a loft and with the bed hoisted up a part that has more than four meters in ceiling height. The functions wall expands all the way to the ceiling that adds a wardrobe, which is accessed from the loft, and additional storage accessed from the bed in lowered position. In lowered position the bed rests on supports 1.7 meter from the ceiling. If a larger bed is desired the loft can fit a bed with a width up to 1.7 meters.
Plan First floor (scale 1:50)
Joakim S채tterman MPARC, Chalmers | 2013
Plan Upper floor (scale 1:50)
Section with bed shown in lowered position (scale 1:50)
Scale 1:50
SKALA 1:500
0
0
10
20
30
40
5
50
6
compact medium 19 m2 41 m3
In difference from the Micro Loft Compact Medium has its living module on the same level as the kitchen and toilet module, which gives better accessibility for wheelchairs. The living module is offset resulting in an external niche towards the parking garage and a 1.2 meters longer cantilevering. Each compact medium has either a French balcony or a real balcony using the cantilevering part of the Compact Medium apartment diagonally below. The floor plan here presented has kept the lifted bed resulting in that the added module contains living area, wardrobes and dining area. The sofa could also accommodate a folding bed. Rearranging the wardrobes would also make it possible to place a bed against the back wall of the living module.
Section (scale 1:50)
Plan (scale 1:50)
Scale 1:50
SKALA 1:500
7
0
0
10
20
30
40
5
50
parking homeliness matter space structure
compact deluxe 34 m2 83 m3
Compact Deluxe fits both to live in alone and to share. Still only 34 m2 the apartment feels spacious with the two levels and an own staircase in the apartment. The lower level contains the basic module with entrance, toilet and kitchen. Additionally the entrance level includes dining area, staircase, office space and storage. Using a movable wall the inner corner turns into a walk-in closet. The staircase is integrated in a large bookshelf, also including the office space. Moving up to the second level you enter the living room and bedroom. As standard Compact Deluxe has the same toilet solution as the smaller versions, however if a larger toilet is desired it can expand by moving the entrance door to the left corner removing the walk-in closet.
Section (scale 1:50)
Plan First floor (scale 1:50) Joakim S채tterman MPARC, Chalmers | 2013
Plan Upper floor (scale 1:50)
Scale 1:50
SKALA 1:500
0
0
10
20
30
40
5
50
8
the process course schedule overview Period
9
October
November
December
Phase
Concept phase (in group)
Design phase (individual)
Presentation phase (individual)
Assignment
7 concept models
Exhibition context + 3 design proposals
Final design presentation
In the concept phase the emphasis was exploring, investigating and researching by design. The topics varied and could e.g. be exploring homeliness, the possibilities of wood, new accessibility, smart solutions, stackability, fire issues, movement, construction and sustainability. All though the work in the studio consisted of varying constellations of research groups the concept phase was to be presented in groups of four, presenting seven concept models per group.
The design phase was divided in two parts. The first two weeks had the focus on the context of the exhibition where the assignment was to individually present three proposals of the placement of the ten pavilions at the proposed site of N채ckrosdammen plus a walkthrough with sketches showing one of the three proposals. The following two weeks had the assignment to present three different design proposals for the compact living as models in scale 1:50. The tasks of the two parts where however given simultaneously so giving a higher priority to the work with the models made it possible to start earlier with them.
The presentation phase was a continuation of the design proposals where the work with one design where taken further. The presentation, that took place at the 20th of December, were presented as posters (A3-format mounted on cardboard) and a presentation model in scale 1:50. Critics where the examiner Morten Lund, Gert Wing책rdh (architect) and Anders Westgerd from GIL (Gothenburg Cooperative for Independent Living).
parking homeliness matter space structure
concept phase Since these pages are intended to show my personal process I choose to present and emphasise my personal work and thought also in the concept phase, although the presentation of this phase were made in groups. During the concept phase I had several different thoughts and topics that I worked with, to summarize five major topics were:
Storage vs Space – Smart solutions for storage can be beneficial but if you instead make possibilities to see the connection between storage space and liveable space you can choose to decrease the amount of storage by decreasing your consumption, which can be seen as living more sustainable.
1.
3.
2.
4.
3D-living – Living small you cannot only count the square meters, instead you should make use of the whole volume. Being able to move also vertically opens the possibility for more varied outlooks giving the home a more diversified feeling.
Multiple small spaces – creating multiple smaller spaces within the dwelling generates a feeling that the home is larger. By also making them more general gives a sense of the control to the resident. This can be well combined with the both previous thoughts.
Movement – an important issue was the accessibility, how a disable in the best way can make use of the compact living. However, movement can also be used to make the home feel larger by, in the same way as earlier topics, giving a larger variety of outlooks.
Stackability – living compact looses a major point if there is no thought of how to join the units together, either with each other or into existing structures.
Joakim Sätterman MPARC, Chalmers | 2013
1, 2: Smart solutions space – using smart solutions to create a changeable home that can be altered to fit the needs of the moment.
3: 3D-living – create a ground level with the basic needs put into a solid item which when moving up in 3D creates multiple small spaces. 4: The core – A solid, central core defining multiple spaces around it and directs the movement pattern.
10
design phase As mentioned in the course schedule overview the design phase included an exhibition context part and a design proposal part. Since I made the choice to priorities the design proposals in a “real” context (hopefully following the exhibition) I choose also here to only briefly present the context assignment and focus on the design process of the housings.
exhibition context
The three design proposal models in scale 1:50 From the right: 3D-living, Home Around the Core and Parking a home
the three design proposals
Exhibition placement proposal at Näckrosdammen in scale 1:1000
The intended site for the Wood Fusion exhibition was Näckrosdammen and the context assignment sought for the placement of the pavilions and how the exhibition could relate to Korsvägen and Götaplatsen. Quite early in the work with this task I questioned the site of Näckrosdammen and in the final presentation instead made the choice to propose the exhibition to be along Södra Vägen. The picture above however shows one of my placement proposals, within the area of Näckrosdammen, consisting of an exhibition center with half of the pavilions on the lawn, which guides to a walk around the pond showing the remaining pavilions. The exhibition center would make a larger mark and be a natural starting point for visitors coming from both Götaplatsen and Korsvägen.
11
With the three design proposals I wanted to try out different ideas that had come up during my process. I made some criteria that I wanted for the models, some were general while others were specific for each model. Some criteria that I wanted to be general, but perhaps showing different aspects, were the concept of Storage vs Space, Stackability and a Freedom to personalize the home. Concerning the topic of 3D-living I could not make up my mind, on one hand I saw many advantages but at the same time it felt like it was a way to cheat in m2. Using 3D-living could make the home look small on the paper, counting m2, but in fact not being so small in volume, which is as important if you speak about the housings to be stackable. In addition to this a 3D-home could be harder to make fully accessible. Therefore I wanted to have proposals that were both using 3D and challenging the opposite. This led to that the work with the 3D-living model and the parking garage grew simultaneously. The third model, Home around the core, was a try to push 3D-living further by making it more compact and easier to adapt to the own needs and wishes.
Intentions/Criteria on the comprehensive level: - Stackability - Storage vs. Space - Freedom to form and personalize the home - Spatial Flow/Movement - Multiple small spaces - 3D-living - Accessibility During later part of the design phase we hade our first meetings with the occupational therapists at Sahlgrenska Rehab Centre and representatives for the accessibility organisation GIL, which led to a larger emphasise on the accessibility in the course assignment. One idea that was questioned was to leave the wheelchair and more extensively use the arms to move around within the home, for example designing the stairs so that they would work sitting. The occupational therapists argued for higher risks for repetitive strain injuries in the shoulders and Anders Westgerd of GIL did not like the idea of being forced to leave the wheelchair.
parking homeliness matter space structure
3D-living
Home around the core
Parking a home
17.5 m2 (ground level) 4.10 m ceiling height
12 m2 (ground level) 3.80 m ceiling height
21 m2 2-2.25 m ceiling height
The curved home is defined by a massive part that you are moving around and up on. Full accessibility (for guests) and all basic needs at ground floor, multiple smaller spaces when moving upwards to be formed after the own needs and wishes. The curved walls are a trick to “increase” the length of the house and to transport light in a beautiful way.
Focus on the concept of a massive core that you move around and also forms different spaces around it. Combined with the two massive walls the core could work as a building system where the inhabitant can build their own levels of choice. In this way the home can be formed after the individual abilities and disabilities.
After investigating different parking houses P-hus Aveny was chosen. One reason was in fact the low ceiling height to push the design and to use as an argument that the concept could work in other, less extreme, parking garages as well. Each level here contains of 8 similar housing units with the concept of a cantilevering part becoming the balcony for the unit above.
Intentions - Movement from public to private - Clear division between fixed basic needs and the 3D freedom - Good accessibility for wheelchair visitors - Creating many different small spaces - no predetermined space for storage opens for the choice between storage and space.
Intentions - A movement from public to private - Many small spaces connected but still detached by the core - Storage vs. Space – a smart storage and functional wall on one side. Does one want to lower the ceiling height in the kitchen by adding storage reachable from the sleeping loft? - Possibility to access the toilet with wheelchair – and possible storage for the wheelchair by the entrance (for those capable of walking some stairs).
Intentions - Using and adapting to an already existing structure - Storage vs Space – car storage vs living space - Smart solution home – personal freedom by using smart solutions to alter the space - Full accessibility
Joakim Sätterman MPARC, Chalmers | 2013
12
presentation phase Quite early when I started to work with the idea of making use of parking houses I knew that was the idea I should go on with in the presentation phase. Both the clear concept and concrete use spoke for it as a good project with both the exhibition context and a workable project in mind. However the choice was not only simple, I knew it would become a larger project than the other proposals of mine would be and I knew I had to drop some of my ideas. Killing darlings and changing scale By choosing the parking house idea I had to cut out some of my initial criteria or rethink the underlying idea of the criteria. I realized that I had to change the scale of my conceptual thinking. Two of my most important intentions in my previous work had been Storage vs. Space and 3D-living.
reflection 3D-living became difficult within the garage structure, in an extent it could continue in the two story-units but it became also a trigger in the design of the façade. As I mention at the first page of the presentation Storage vs. Space was zoomed out from only within the home to become a manifesto on the urban scale, which I think made the concept stronger. To make the project more interesting, both aesthetically (with the expression of the façade) and to attract a more diverse group of potential inhabitant, I wanted more than one sort of housing. From the proposal Home around the core I took the idea of an easily manufactured system. By working with subdividing of the façade I came up with what I found as the optimized smallest housing module, which became “compact micro”, and out of that came my project Parking Homeliness
Being the first studio project at master level this course was different in many ways. A larger difference from the bachelor was the amount of freedom in the assignment. The change came quite abruptly when we started with four weeks of concept modelling consisting of only work on our own in the studio. Although I see the point that the teachers did not want to disturb the inventive process I think some breaks consisting of lectures or study visits would have served the group good. Personally I had time with some own sidetracks investigating wood by designing and making both an OSB-table and a laser cut plywood lamp. A point that could have come earlier was the contact with Sahlgrenska Rehab and GIL, they response was both necessary and inspiring and I think the work in the studio as a whole could have come further in this issues if the meetings with them had been in an earlier stage of the process. The parallel work with different design proposals was a great way to make it possible to explore different ideas and also make a better evaluation of your own work. To learn this working method, and using it in an effective way, is something I think would be very beneficial in the professional working with clients. The three weeks long presentation phase resulted in that I knew that I would not have all the time I wanted to really go in to details. Some things I would have liked to look more in to if there would have been time are details concerning the windows, the bathroom and how the inside of the units meets the parking garage. To conclude I am satisfied with my work, both the final result and my working process. The freedom of the assignment suited me well and helped me to question even the given assignment, think creative and come up with alternative solutions on my own. This became a good lesson to bring on: to not only do and present what is asked for but to see and show new possibilities, outside the expected.
Sketch model in scale 1:100 of the garage façade with different typologies of housing units
13