Repurposing the unwanted - 300 temporary apartments in Marievik by Johan Alvfors

ABSTRACT: REPURPOSING THE UNWANTED - 300 TEMPORARY APARTMENTS IN MARIEVIK A 1980’s office block is threatened with demolition, leaving space for high-end housing. Through presenting decisionmakers with a choice and demanding action, I suggest a new future for this unwanted architecture. The 32.000 sq m building is turned into 300 temporary rental apartments, following a strong structural logic to keep investment low. The found structure is used as a tool for contrasting the mainstream housing development of today, caring for urban diversity, ecology and coexistence. The thesis project investigates if and how the repurposing of structures not meant for residential use into apartments can be a tool to challenge accelerating segregation.

SITE: MARIEVIK Established as Stockholm’s first suburb in the 1860’s, workers’ housing and residential shacks sprung up in Årstadal, providing the industries in Liljeholmen with labour. In 1928, as the new Årsta bridge lead the main railway north of the area, many industries moved, and the housing fell into disrepair. Lighter industries gradually took over. In 1980, the big regeneration into an office district began in Marievik, while Årstadal remained industrial for 20

more years. PROPERTY: MARIEVIK 15 The first house built in the regeneration, on the site of old railway workshops, was Marievik 15 and as such it bears a strong symbolic value. It was commissioned by the biggest Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter - not for the paper’s operation, but for leasing. At the time, this was a new kind of property development. Initially the plans were all open, the internal structure has been added to meet every tenant’s needs. Although planned for mixed office and light industry, production was quickly replaced by just bureau. This typology still influences our understanding of offices. The building also has a high architectural value, classified by the city as culturally valuable. Anders Berg’s and Erik Thelaus’ creation was one of the very first in hightech architecture, mixing modernism while meeting the demands of the energy crisis. As of today, the property owner is a subsidiary to a big pension insurance company, whose primary interest is to get high return on invested capital. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND CRITIQUE As a new wave of demolishing sweep Stockholm, precious post-modern office architecture like Marievik 15 are replaced

by high-end condominiums. This is also the case here: As office leasing is getting less profitable, the demand for housing in attractive locations rise. The property owner has started working on a scheme including 300 apartments and some shops in a new building. This is problematic given what happens in the area. In just eight years, the area south of Marievik has been developed with high-end housing of the same type, now putting pressure on the post-modern office area. The 3000 apartments in Årstadal has been developed all by the same company, spreading its monotone urban fabric. There is a strong conformism as to what an attractive residential situation is, helping to drive a commodification of housing. This development makes every other aspect of the city except the private sphere secondary. Not much can be known for certain about what architecture will be considered attractive in public opinion tomorrow. What we do know is that all architecture passes through a phase of unwantedness, and that urban diversity and complexity is appreciated, and that earlier waves of demolition have always been heavily criticised. It seems we are blind to the qualities of one architectural era at the time - and today, we lack appreciation for houses like Marievik 15. Demolishing it would be an inconsequent blow to values yet to be realized. Demolishing is also problematic from an ecological perspective. The building is only 30 years old, holds high technical standard and has few problems. Just demolishing the approximately 20.000 cubic meters of concrete it contains is an extreme loss of energy and raw material.

This project is about saving this valuable puzzle piece for the future city. I must convince decision-makers to deny the change in the masterplan needed for the redevelopment. Given that the building is saved, however, a permit for repurposing can be granted. This means putting the public opinion and will of the property owner aside for the respect of qualities yet unknown. For the property owner, this decision would mean a loss of expected profit. Thus, too save the building for a future where its qualities are once again wanted and as such profitable, I search for a way of getting a reasonably profitable temporary use. I argue that this is done best through temporary, high density rental apartments. The layout of the office building puts constraints on the type of apartments possible, guaranteeing that the outcome will increase urban diversity also structurally. I can fit 300 apartments into the building - just as many as the developer wanted. In order to balance financial interest in the privately owned city, the democratic power needs to be presented with an alternative future. We must not miss this possibility of empowering the public, taking over initiatives for the future city. My conclusion of the thesis project is twofold: that society have strong tools to counter segregation if there is political will, even without changing the economical logic of architecture and building, and that the time of the architect student, who can spend time researching such possibilities is important and should be spent challenging the possible.

Johan Alvfors: Repurposing the Unwanted - 300 temporary appartments in Marievik (degree project). Studio #2, supervised by Anders Wilhelmsson, Tor Lindstrand and Erik Wingquist. Contact: johan@alvfors.se, +46 (0) 730-50 37 72

CAN AN ARCHITECT DO ANYTHING ABOUT SEGREGATION? This thesis work started out with one question: will I as an architect be able to do anything about segregation? This question, of course, depend on what you consider an architect to be. An architect, just like any other person, can work politically for change, both through personal activism and through organizations. But that aside, in the narrow sense of an architect being someone who design environments that are to be built: is it possible to draw something buildable (that is, not profitable but economically and socially possible), that can help stop segregation? I started out by analysing segregation, focusing on two main factors of interest for urban planning: income distribution and social security. Those two parameters are major hurdles to coexistence on today’s housing market. The analysis of segregation in this project is inspired by readings, mainly of sociologic text. I need to start here, because it is inequality that should be confronted, not only the resulting physical structures. The main source of inspiration I found in Fronesis nr 42-43 (red Elin Grelsson Almestad, Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren, Olav Fumarola Unsgaard), describing housing and inequality in a Swedish context. The book stresses how the hollowing of the concept of housing as a social right through political withdrawal from responsibility for housing supply has sparked a massive commodification of housing - a perfect seedbed for increased segregation.

Segregation in Stockholm (income distribution) In Guy Standing “The Precariat - the new dangerous class”, these ideas are confirmed on an international level, clarifying the links and gaps between income distribution, precarity and possibilities in life. However, segregation is inherently complex, because it occurs in the grey zone between our freedom and the hurdles to our freedom that are forced upon us through socioeconomic structures. One such example is our tendency to live close to people that are similar to us, even when there are nothing that forces us to do so. That is why a project aiming at physical solutions to segregation must look further than sociology. A helpful approach is seeing segregation as the stratification of city areas, where differences between inhabitants in terms of socioeconomic factors can be seen on neighbourhood scale rather than within the neighbourhood. That means that the goal is a city that allows for differences on a small scale. However, these differences needs to be achieved through the creation by equal but different alternatives. That is, we cannot achieve differences by using the socioeconomic differences, i.e. building with a lower standard for those who cannot afford the normative housing of the area. The key lies in that while “difference” is objective, “equal” is subjective and depends on the norms. How can we translate equal

What can names tell us about segregation? but different opportunities into structures that are unequal from the viewpoint of the housing market? This is why the value conformity of the housing market. If we strive for diversity as the opposite of segregation, it is troubling that the market find it rational to be selling the same kind of housing, the same kind of life style, everywhere. One aspect of commodification of living space as the replacement of the right to housing, as well as the new housing-political goals that stipulates that a “well-functioning” housing market is the sole success factor, is the conformism taking place on this market. New living patterns, a bigger housing stock and better communications affects and drives the development. On the condominium market, the mechanism is quite natural: we want a place to sell in the first place, living in it is secondary. Newly produced houses tap into the mechanism by addressing socioeconomic groups that are the most profitable. This discrimination results in conformism reproduced. In rented apartments, the system is not that obvious but discrimination still takes place by turning to those that can pay for higher standard and better situation through the rent.

Diversity is not natural, it needs to be created actively. Also, the commonplace image of diversity (that is, coexistence of differents) is more diverse than often reality. The imagined, full diversity is a utopian notion, worth striving for but never to be fully realized. But people are different, and live different - and we are affected by buildings/environments. How do people, buildings and the legal and social rules that surrounds them change and adapt to one another? When someone moves into a new place, there is a gap between the habit of living and what the space permits. This gap is a cost to the person, who will start to adapt to minimize those costs. First, by finding new ways of using the space that does not change personal habits. Slowly, habits will adjust. Only if the cost of changing habits are bigger than those of challenging the physical structure, the building will be changed. Thus, in a given time frame, people change gradually and structures in steps. Social norms are like people, while technical law democratically decided also works in steps. So, people have to adapt their differences. From this perspective, conformism could be seen as the inability of the market to cater for all those differences, providing “something for everyone”. Production rationality stands against this of course, and the lower cost the high exchangeability leads to. Both architects and the market build their illusions

New apartments in Marievik about how living works, rarely with enough contact with the complex reality, adding another layer of resistance to a better fit. Natural diversity is impossible to achieve, and imitated diversity by sampling different locations etc. is usually closer. Trying to do this is important also for segregation. Those already accustomed the kind of living promoted will do better. The further this inequality goes, the deeper is the conformism hole dug among the remaining possible alternatives. STRATEGIES FOR THE PROJECT I sketched three different strategies for answering my question: 1) Rejecting drawing something planned to be built, I could spend the time of the thesis work as a critic and debater with a propagandistic approach. Through telling about a parallel reality/vision and emphasizing problems and prejudice in architecture, I can change not the physical environment but the political, maybe with consequences for future building. 2) By deepening the analysis of segregation and the housing market, I could search for a rational way of challenging the “system”, and maybe draw something that could work as “grit in the machinery”, something that logically could

have consequences for segregation. 3) The last alternative is to “just draw something”, and then discuss what it will mean with regards to segregation. Since I wanted to focus not on the architect’s role as a politician but on what is drawn (still acknowledging this role might be the most important part of an architects work), strategy one was ruled out. The risk with strategy two is that there might be no way to skew the system, because you have to work on the terms of the system. That brings me back to strategy one. Strategy three, on the other hand, is that I may miss the goal, drawing something that might be possible but that only increases diversity on the fringe, not really challenging the core of segregation. Additionally, the consequences will only be theoretical and local, without rationality or replicability. It turns out, I need a combination of the strategies. I need to involve political decisions, since they are crucial to all building and to some extent can control economy. Secondly, I need the idea of something that can challenge the system generally - but this small “stone” needs to be deeply rooted in the context. That means that strategy three is the core of this project. I will draw housing for people that are absurd enough to break with conformity both economically and socially, but

Models of the new neighbourhoods of Stockholm, from top left Norra djurgårdsstaden, Marievik, Norra stationsområdet och Västra Kungsholmen (models by the city museum) still feasible within the system, still possible to build. The project should be presented as a political alternative, an option open if the intention would be to achieve a city less commodified and segregated. The explanation of what the project could achieve if built will still be theoretical, but at the same time generalizable. CHOOSING SITE In order to draw something, a piece that stops housing segregation, I need a site. The choice of site is a delicate question: when the target is segregation, the question easily become a critique of a specific group instead of a place. Who should move where? I choose to solve this by looking at the way Stockholm is growing. For the first time in many decades, Stockholm is growing faster. The political decisions about the housing potential of the city and the new vision for Stockholm’s growth - “Promenadstaden” - point out a new way of building that goes together with trust in the housing market. Except the small puzzle pieces added as fill ins in the city fabric, some new areas with a more holistic approach has been added to the city edges. It is not the way of building that is new: big uniform blocks built at the same time, much more like the modernist suburbs that anyone want to admit. Together, the areas are planned for around 25 000

apartments. The difference is instead the locations of these areas and how this is communicated. None of them are thought like new areas in their own right. They are all intended extensions of downtown. They are mostly condominiums, sold long before they where built. But most prominently - the city as a democratic organisation had nothing to do with the construction. This was all built not as new places in society, but as products to buy. This create a different logic from planning level to the materials in the bathrooms. The areas have been branded extensively by contractors and the municipality respectively. A brief glance on this propaganda tells a story of individualism and luxury in various shapes. The middle class buy the housing, maybe believing in the stories. Because of the economic mechanisms, the areas are segregated right from the start. In addition to the general increasing inequality, these areas are the way segregation is built in Stockholm today. These areas all share something else than their future typology: they hold industries and office buildings from the late modernist and early post modern times. Most prominently, office buildings from the 1980’s are being demolished to give way to the new city. I decided to use such an iconic example, Marievik 15 in Liljeholmen, as a tool for creating an alternative story about the future of these areas.

MARIEVIK 15 seen from Liljeholmen bridge MARIEVIK 15 - A THREATENED PART OF FUTURE DIVERSITY As a new wave of demolitions sweeps through Stockholm, fine examples of post modern office architecture is sacrificed for the doubtful benefit of speculative building of co-operative apartments. The plans for the property Marievik 15 in Stockholm neighbourhood Liljeholmen are typical for this development. Why is it, that we in a time with a very conservative outlook on urban planning, knock down buildings only 30 years old? The late 70’s is an interesting time in the history of cities. The energy crisis and the decline of the modernist paradigm led to doubt about the methods of the day, and architecture seeks new paths. Simultaneously the economy is changing. Speculative building of privately owned office buildings increases dramatically, which profoundly changes the idea about workplace and business premises. That was the context for the origin of Marievik 15: a first step in the renewal of the city district that was then an industrial zone. Architects Anders Berg and Erik Thelaus created a completely new type of office building for national newspaper Dagens Nyheter and investment company Custos. The novelty lay in the fact that the house

was never meant for the companies themselves, but for leasing. Premises created not for a specific business was a forward-thinking concept that met the demands of its time, and it still influences our idea of the office building where generality and flexibility are the two central values. Marievik 15 was the first of its kind in Sweden. Marievik 15 has been classified by the Stockholm City Museum as a building of high heritage value from a cultural point of view. However, not only the real estate history is worth protecting. The design of the building itself holds many qualities. After the changes to late modernism brought about by the energy crisis, Berg and Thelaus were looking for a new identity, using high quality materials, precision in detail and a rich design language. It is a house built to last, and is one of the best examples of so-called high-tech architecture, which in many of its features prefigures the post modernism of the 80’s. Despite the high cultural value, the city of Stockholm is working on demolition plans.The property owner AMF Fastigheter, whose primal purpose is far from safeguarding the city environment but rather to raise capital in pension funds for its

controlling company AMF, has investigated alternatives for the property. The most profitable, it turns out, is to demolish and develop 300 co-operative apartments in its place. The Urban Planning Committee are sympathetic because it means more housing to help mitigate the housing crisis – but ignores that the plans violates several of their policies. The strange thing is not that a house that is currently out of fashion is less profitable and it threatened with demolition, but that all parties are so short-sighted when it comes to something as long-lasting as urban development. What urban qualities that will be esteemed in the future are hard to predict, and even more so how they will be conceived 30 years from now. Trends in urban design keeps coming one after another. However, it is certain that diversity and historical complexity is always appreciated. If we get rid of the buildings that will become the pearls of tomorrow just because they are not remunerative today, we will undermine the idea of the city as layers of ideas that forms a compound rather than a whole. Many of the business buildings of the 80’s where build with

the same flexible structure as Marievik 15. That means there are alternatives to destruction. By repurposing the existing structure, it would be possible to create around 300 apartments – the same number of new homes, though less profitable, than the expensive and energy demanding demolition and new construction would bring. Both in Stockholm and internationally there are many examples of how such repurposing can be carried out, keeping both the qualities of the structure and adding to the diversity of the city. In democratic forums and with the help of our elected representatives we can turn the development. It is as simple as denying the contractors a new building permit. Politicians must dare to stand against the interest of the property owners and put the interest of the public first. The arguments for keeping the building are not nostalgic or even based on cultural history, but on what we know about how we create a rich urban environment. In the long term there are no winners on the short-sightedness of property development and a transformation of Marievik into an area where all houses are from the same decade. In a time when the architectures of the 80’s have few friends, it is even more important with forward-thinking and responsible political decisions.

South facade towards Liljeholmen

Graphic ornaments above the main entrance

The scale of the building is handled by breaking it down into smaller volumes.

The facade clearly shows the constructive elements, but presents the joints as ornaments.

The inside of the L-block has a facade of stainless steel, reflecting the view of Sรถdermalm to the tower block.

View from the seventh floor along the water.

The office floors are mostly empty and evacuated.

The industrial scale of the communication spaces in the building is important to the repurposing.

The repetition of four windows shows the basic wall element, creating a rythm as a constraint in the project.

PUB

SITE: MARIEVIK

PUB

Marievik is currently an area with two strands. In the east, the property developer JM have developed a well-delimited housing area with mostly their own co-op apartments. This was possible through an unusually acquisition of land in the former industry zone. In the west, the office buildings from the 80â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cling on to the land between the water and the bridge to central Stockholm, which separates Marievik from Liljeholmen south of the road.

CM AMF

AMF PROPERTIES

PUB

VARIOUS PUBLIC/MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP

ABD

ABERDEEN PROPERTIES

CONDEMONIUMS

JM, PROPERTY DEVELOPER

RENT

PUB

RENTAL APPARTMENTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

CM JM

PUB RENT CM

CM CM ABD

AMF

CM CM RENT

RENT

AMF

ABD

PUB AMF AMF

AMF

ABD

ABD AMF

PUB

5 rooms FLAT 41: 29 m2 2 rooms

PROPOSAL: PLANS

20 21

FLAT 40: 33 m2 2 rooms Ä

FLAT 01: 87 m2 5 rooms

FLAT 51: 119 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 02: 67 m2 4 rooms Z X

FLAT 39: 55 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 50: 106 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 41: 29 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 40: 33 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 42: 112 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 02: 67 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 39: 55 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 49: 49 m2 1 room

FLAT 03: 84 m2 4 rooms FLAT 38: 45 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 43: 49 m2 1 room

FLAT 03: 84 m2 4 rooms

CORE A

FLAT 48: 61 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 37: 27 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 44: 61 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 04: 84 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 36: 31 m2 2 room s

FLAT 37: 27 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 38: 45 m2 2 rooms

MM M

FLAT 47: 104 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 35: 40 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 45: 114 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 05: 75 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 04: 84 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 36: 31 m2 2 room s

FLAT 34: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 46: 119 m2 3 rooms

J CORE C

FLAT 33: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 06: 66 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 35: 40 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 32: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 05: 75 m2 3 rooms

G FLAT 07: 58 m2 3 rooms

L FLAT 31: 55 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 34: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 08: 56 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 30: 31 m2 2 rooms

E FLAT 29: 64m2 3 rooms

J FLAT 20: 32 m2 2 rooms

CORE C FLAT 33: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 21: 27 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 22: 27 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 23: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 24: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 25: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 26: 60 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 27: 55 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 09: 78 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 28: 69 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 06: 66 m2 3 rooms

LAUNDRY ROOM

MAINTENANCE

H B

CORE B

FLAT 32: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 07: 58 m2 3 rooms

EXCERPT FROM PLAN 1:200 STORIES 5-7 FLAT 31: 55 m2 3 rooms

A FLAT 19: 65 m2 5 rooms

FLAT 18: 44 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 17: 55 m2 3 rooms

Tenant’s room: 30

FLAT 16: 65 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 15: 57 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 14: 56 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 13: 56 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 12: 59 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 11: 56 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 10: 128 m2 5 rooms

PLAN 1:400 STORIES 5-7

PROPOSAL: PLANS The program of the existing building is complex. While this project focuses on the development of new apartments in the office spaces, it also makes suggestions for the ground floor and mezzanine currently holding foyer, restaurant, café and production areas.

20 21

APARTMENTS The project aims at showing that it is possible to build 300 apartments in the existing structure in a cost-efficient way. As a consequence, the building process has been deciding much of the logic of the project. Simple technical solution and standardization of expensive parts of the project (bathroom modules and connected kitchens) where first priorities, along with no added circulation. The chosen solution is one where the ventilation system is installed horizontally on each floor and connected with existing shafts. This calls for a corridor in the centre of the L-block (also called house 2 and 3) and one corridor surrounding the core in the tower block (house 1).

STORE ROOMS FOR RESTAURANT

RESTAURANT

VENTILATION ROOM

CORE A

VENTILATION ROOM

MM KITCHEN

Typical for an office building is the depth from the facade, making it a challenge to meet the requirements of daylight in each room. To some extent this affects the plans, mainly in the tower block, and calls for bigger apartments there. In the lower block however, the repetitiveness makes another approach possible. As the depths of the apartments are fixed by the building volumes and position of the corridor to two standard measurements, and since the facade is repetitive, I used a diagram as a tool for programming the sequence of flats and reach diversity. The diagram shows the maximum number of accessible rooms for each number of windows in the room, and for the building depth. The two diagrams shown here apply to the outside and inside of house two and three on floors 5-7. Using the tool, choosing from a fixed number of possibilities, the flats can be standardised yet exchangeable, and the geometries of installations are easily planned. The B-unit, with one of the windows at the side of the wall element, is the smallest possible room width, 1700 mm excluding wall thickness, while the A-unit with a width of only 1060 mm, is too narrow to form a room on its own. By combining units (AA, AB, BB etc.), rooms of different proportions can be achieved. The furnishing suggestions in the plan show how the different combinations of units give spaces for specific use. The south and east facade is set back on the two upper-

KK AUTIDOTIUM

J CORE C

ATRIUM

CAFETERIA

LAUNDRY ROOM

MAINTENANCE

STORE-ROOMS

CORE B

PLAN 1:400 STOREY 2

PROPOSAL: PLANS most floors. This means that the apartments are of equal depth on both sides of the corridor. Since the vertical installations for water are connected to the position of the corridor, which remains intact, this does not affect the technical solutions in the building. OTHER USES In the office building, a restaurant, café, lecture- and meeting halls form the ground floor that connects the office volumes. These spaces are clearly unfit for residential use due to their lack of windows. The same goes for the big open space on the fourth floor (one floor above ground floor). This space was originally meant for production, formed as a large hall with lantern roofs and smaller office rooms to the sides. For the project, I suggest that the ground floor functions are kept intact. As an area with an increasing amount of inhabitants and a city life that is extending from office hours to the whole day, a restaurant should be able to live on. Some spaces could be used collectively by tenants in the house for meetings etc.. With minimal adjustments, the 4th floor space can be kept as office space. I propose a way to keep this area clearly separated from the residential areas, sharing only the stairs and elevators. The big space can easily be subdivided into smaller office landscapes, with access to collective meeting rooms, vestibules and pantry as shown in the drawing. The two lower, underground floors hold the parking spaces needed to meet the parking norms for the area. They can be kept as they are.

20 21

CORE A

VENTILATION

MM M

K KK

DIVIDEABLE OFFICE SPACES

J CORE C

ATRIUM

ANALYSIS How do you live in a room, 1300 mm wide? Who will live there? Will it be someone else than the person who can manage to buy into the condominiums built next door? These apartments are compromises, with both qualities and downsides. They are practical solutions in an uneasy setting, making the best of a structure that is unfit for housing. The depth of the apartments means that there is much space for program without daylight, such as storage. While the high number of apartments per corridor hint that the apartments have been squeezed into the volume, the main design problem is in fact how to make good use of the whole depth. The rooms are sometimes small, but meet the minimum standards, which makes the impression that there are many rooms in relation to the space. As to their urban setting, the location is very attractive: by the water, with close proximity to inner Stockholm and the centre in Liljeholmen.

LAUNDRY ROOM

MAINTENANCE

STORE-ROOMS FOR OFFICES

CORE B

PLAN 1:400 STOREY 4

PROPOSAL: PLANS

20 21

The proposed plans raises questions about the qualities of the resulting spaces. While the norm of contemporary apartment is an open plan with many directions of space, these rooms are minimal, unproportionate high in relation to width, and so deep that the way of living in them must change drastically. This deviation from the norm (without violating the rules for reuse of buildings in Sweden) is the consequence of the existing structure, but will also have economic impact. Since the spaces will not be considered attractive, the price for renting or buying the apartments will be lower. Hopefully, this can be a way of achieving the goal of creating an option of homes equal in value to inhabitants, but unequal in value on the housing market. The apartments will be presented as temporary to be able to use certain technical loopholes in the building regulations. But what will happen in the long run? If the project is successful and this addition to the area is appreciated, will the temporary building permit (maximum 10 years) be prolonged? Will the new housing compound become accepted as “proper apartments”? In that case, the interference might have added to the idea of what living space could be, making the norm broader. If that means that the socioeconomic consequences will last is hard to tell. At least it will have meant something for some people, even for a shorter time, before rents go up. Or maybe, the temporary apartments will just have been a ten-year delay of the demolition. In that case - maybe the delay was enough for the city to once again see the value of the structure, finding a use for which it is (normatively) better suited? Though obscure, the possible outcomes are hopeful. I think it is possible to generalize this project into a method that is applicable in more areas where older structures are replaced by something that has a high market value at the moment. By respecting the constraints of the structure through an economic argument, they will not as easily be conformed. In the current situation in Stockholm, where the need for quick and qualitative housing solutions is desperate, while the market solution to providing them is malfunctioning, it is an efficient way of using the period in the life of a building when it is out of date. It is possible to to turn the unwanted into something that supports and enriches society. Note: The plans are originally drawn in scale 1:100.

FLAT 40: 29 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 04: 103 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 01: 38 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 39: 33 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 01: 103 m2 4 rooms

X FLAT 02: 35 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 38: 55 m2 3 rooms

VENTILATION ROOM

FLAT 03: 68 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 37: 45 m2 2 rooms

CORE A

FLAT 36: 27 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 04: 68 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 35: 31 m2 2 room s

P VENTILATION ROOM

FLAT 34: 40 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 05: 58 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 02: 103 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 03: 103 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 33: 27 m2 1 room

J FLAT 32: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 06: 54 m2 3 rooms

CORE C

H FLAT 31: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 07: 44 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 30: 55 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 08: 45 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 29: 31 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 28: 64m2 3 rooms FLAT 19: 32 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 20: 27 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 21: 27 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 22: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 23: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 24: 27 m2 1 room

FLAT 25: 60 m2 4 rooms

FLAT 26: 55 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 09: 63 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 27: 69 m2 3 rooms

LAUNDRY ROOM

MAINTENANCE

CORE B

A FLAT 18: 59 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 17: 44 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 16: 46 m2 3 rooms

Tenant’s room: 30

FLAT 15: 46 m2 3 rooms

FLAT 14: 45 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 13: 45 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 12: 48 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 11: 39 m2 2 rooms

FLAT 10: 90 m2 4 rooms

PLAN 1:400 STORIES 8-9

LOGIC OF COMBINATIONS: DEPTH 9600

LOGIC OF COMBINATIONS: DEPTH 7800

LOGIC OF COMBINATIONS: DEPTH 9600 1060

1700

1060

A A

2 21 Am A

TWO WINDOWS

21 m

THREE WINDOWS

FOUR WINDOWS

A B

38 m

B A

A A B

82402

A A B

10060

B A A

B A A B

78 m 2

EIGHT WINDOWS

A B

B A A B

10060

113 m

B A

B A A B

A A B

96 m

8880 2

84 m

B A A B

B A

102 m 2

10700

B A A B

B A A

113 m

A B

B A A B

11880

MAX. 3 ROOMS

A B

FOUR WINDOWS

A B

102 m

A B

36 m

5880

A A B

31 m 2

B A

B A A B

A A B

45 m 2

B A A

B A

64 m

SEVEN WINDOWS

A A B

B A A B

45 m

B A A

MAX. 6 ROOMS

EIGHT WINDOWS

SEVEN WINDOWS

A B

11880

B B A A B

B A

11880

B A A B

10060

A B

68 m 2

B A A B B A B

92 m

11880

B A A B

MAX. 5 ROOMS

B A A B

11880

B A A B B A A B B

83 m 2

73 m 2

83 m 2

10700

9520

10700

11880

A B BA A A

B A A B

73 m

B A

B A A

78 m 2

MAX. 4 ROOMS

8880

78 m 2

B A A B

59 m 68 m

B A A B B A B A A B

92 m

9520

B A

B A A B

7700 2

10060

11880

MAX. 5 ROOMS

MAX. 4 ROOMS

59 m

64 m 2

90 m 2

B A A B

113 m

SIX WINDOWS

MAX. 3 ROOMS

B A A B

8880

B A A

8240

MAX. 3 ROOMS

B A A B

5880

54 m 2

5880

36 m 2

7060

9520

MAX. 2 ROOMS

45 m

A A B

7700

FIVE WINDOWS

MAX. 2 ROOMS

A B

B A A

45 m

FIVE WINDOWS

SIX WINDOWS

27 m

5880 2

B A

45 m

B A A B

11880

B A A B

4700

8240

22 m

A A B

4700

1 ROOM

3520 B

27 m

54 m 2

B A A B

A B

MAX. 5 ROOMS

B A A B

7060

MAX. 4 ROOMS

90 m

22 m 4060

45 m

B A A B

10700

A B

FOUR WINDOWS

9520

73 m

5880

THREE WINDOWS

56 m 2

2880 A B

5880

MAX. 4 ROOMS

B A

11880

84 m 2

96 m 2

11880

SEVEN WINDOWS

B A A

MAX. 3 ROOMS

B A A B

73 m

13 m 2

4060

56 m 2

7700

B A

67 m 2

MAX. 2 ROOMS

1 ROOM

3520

31 m

B A A B

8880

17 m

THREE WINDOWS

5880

B A A

B A A B

MAX. 2 ROOMS

B A A B

7700

17 m

BASIC UNITS

2880

A A

TWO WINDOWS

BASIC UNITS

2 13 mB

2240A A

TWO WINDOWS

1 ROOM

5880

44 m 2

56 m 2

B A A

78 m

4700

1 ROOM

33 m

2 A 8m

ONE WINDOW

3520

33 m 2 B

A B

B A

67 m 2

1700

2240

44 m

56 m 2

7060

FIVE WINDOWS

A B

5880

B A A B

B A A

B A

8240

SEVEN WINDOWS

BASIC UNITS

1700

1060

ONE WINDOW

3520

4700

5880

7060

56 m 2

SIX WINDOWS

38 m 2

FIVE WINDOWS

A A B

27 m

A A B

56 m 2

A B

2 27 m A B

4060

5880

FOUR WINDOWS

2880

A A B

16 m 2

A B

4060

5880

THREE WINDOWS

BASIC UNITS

16 m 2

2880

10 m

2240

TWO WINDOWS

10 m

2240

SIX WINDOWS

ONE WINDOW

1060

1700

ONE WINDOW

LOGIC OF COMBINATIONS: DEPTH 7800

B A A B

92 m

11880

MAX. 5 ROOMS

MAX. 6 ROOMS

BUILDING PROCESS The transformation from office building to temporary appartments can be done with the existing infrastructure. There are two industrial elevator that can carry most of the material, including bathroom modules, pre-sawn wall timber and boards. If needed, one part of the building (i.e. divided by the cores) could be rebuilt at a time.

2. The only change to the concrete structure is made: minimal shafts for water are drilled vertically through the Variax elements. The exhaust ventilation system is installed horisontally on each floor, using the shafts and infrastructure of the office building. Changing use will result in approx. 30% excess capacity. The carpet is cut away where structure needs to meet the floor.

3. Modular bathrooms are installed. There are four different modules with two possible placements (differentiated by the direction door). The modules are transported in two pieces using the service elevator. The carpet is fixated after the transport.

4. The wooden frame construction is raised, using 3 by 2 inches for interior walls, and 5 by 2 inches for walls separating flats. This is needed to stabilize the 3.40 m high walls.

5. Finally, the frames are clad with plywood and plasterboard and kitchens put in place and installed. The heating system (radiators under windows) is maintained from the office. The repurposing process can also be carried out at one half of the building at a time.

1. All light interior divisions are removed as they do not meet the fire protection criteria. This can be done using the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s service elevator. There is no need for additional infrastructure or shielding the building, since the technical systems are kept intact.

VARIATIONS OF USE VARIATION OF USE PLAN AND SECTION OF B-UNIT ROOM 1:50

BATHROOM MODULES The bathroom modules are prefabricated, self-supported â&#x20AC;&#x153;rooms-within-the-roomâ&#x20AC;?. There are four different versions, two smaller and two including shower and waching machines. The bigger modules come in halfs to fit into the elevators, and are easily assambled inside the building. All installations are built into the same halft of the module.

Exhaust air through bathroom

Fully accessible bathroom unit

Storage space on top (1 m high)

Exhaust air through ba

Fully accessible bathr

Storage space on top (1 m high) Metal frame structure for lightness

All installation in one half Metal frame structure for lightness Hole in frame for door in otherdirection

All installation in one h Hole in frame for door in otherdirection

Seam sealed after joining the two halfs

Seam sealed after join the two halfs Cast floor with inclination and reinforcement

MODULE A Bathroom with high accessibility, two possible door directions.

MODULE B Bathroom for flats where laundry room is not provided.

MODULE C Toilet supplementing main bathroom in bigger flats.

Cast floor with inclinat and reinforcement

MODULE D Non-accessible bathroom (lower standard) for flats where the structure demands it.

PROPOSAL: SPACES

Section of room in B section, one window, depth 5500

PROPOSAL: SPACES

Kitchen in B-B section, two windows, depth 7800

Living room in B-B section, two windows, depth 7800

PROPOSAL: SPACES

Room in B section, one window, depth 5500

Room in A-A section, two windows, depth 5500

Room in B section, one window, depth 7300

EXHIBITION, MODEL, SITE MODEL The final exhibition of the project included a wall of drawings and pictures, a model in scale 1:25 showing the structure, transformation process and possible furnishing of the appartments in part of the building, a site model in scale 1:1000 covering all of Marievik and surrounding areas, and additional text material written during the project.