The Right to Dwell - Manifesto for an Affordable City by IBBL

THE RIGHT TO DWELL Manifesto for an affordable city

Urbanism & Societal Change

THE RIGHT TO DWELL Fran Ă lvarez Alessia Cacopardo Henry Gibbon Brittany Irvine Paul Konrad Jordan McCrae Marcus Vesterager

PUBLISHED BY The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture, Design and Conservation, School of Architecture Master Programme Urbanism & Societal Change THE RIGHT TO DWELL THINK TANK Fran Álvarez Alessia Cacopardo Henry Gibbon Brittany Irvine Paul Konrad Jordan McCrae Marcus Vesterager TUTORS Deane Simpson Charles Bessard Carlos Ramos Tenorio VISITING TUTOR Keller Easterling GRAPHIC ADVISOR Joost Grootens

Abstract

The current urban development in Copenhagen can be outlined by four main societal changes which have been ongoing for the past two decades: increasing levels of debt per household, liveability as a monetizable indicator, profit driven urban planning conducted in negotiation with real estate developers, and an ever increasing gap between housing prices and wages. These four drivers are altering Copenhagenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demography and social coherence; provoking the creation of a scenario in which only the highest income group has the right to a home appropriate in size, location and capacity of adaptation in the city. The remaining multitude is consequently priced out of their right to live in the city and to access its affordances, reduced to carrying out an existence dominated by debt and inequality. In this way the home has shifted from being the strongest asset in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life to the strongest liability. Despite the visible risks that these dynamics contain, new real estate developments in Copenhagen keep emerging without taking any of the above into account. Copenhagen is growing, but is it doing so in the right direction? And who is accountable for this? Is there an alternative to the offered standard? This manifesto is an investigation into how, why and who has the capacity to inhabit the city - one that is marketed as one of the most liveable places of the world. This project looks into how planning tools, profit driven architectural (and social) aspiration and real estate polices are building an urban condition of exclusivity. This is counteracted with architectural and development model proposals intended to expand the right to dwell to all citizens.

Content

Current Situation

Alternatives

12 14 16 20 22 24 26 28 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 50

94 110 112 114 116 118 122 136

Liveability What is Liveability? Liveability Trends The Cost of Liveability What is Affordability? Liveability + Unaffordability Un-liveability trends Un-liveability Who Has the Right to Dwell? Financially Excluded Financially Excluded Groups Excluded Age Groups Danes Moving Out Limited Housing choice Current Options Unequal + Exclusive

Why is this happening? 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 72 74 76 80 82 84 86 88 90

Competitive City Infrastructural City Control of Land Supply By & Havn Main Landowner By & Havn Drive for Profit Focus on Developers 25% Social Housing Developers in Control Missing Homes The Developer Model Cost Selling the Dream: Exterior Selling the Dream: Interior In-flexibility M2 vs. M3 Public vs. Private Access: shared space?

Manifesto How Else Could We Build? Speculative Developer Model Housing Taxonomy Traditional Models Existing Models Alternative Models Steps Forward

Student Projects 150 152 160 174 184 200 210 224

Proposals Mapping Barriers and Actors Prototype for Flexible Living The Accessible City Home for a Lifetime Living within Layers Home Port MAXIMISED Minimum

Video 244 The Right to Dwell Video

Appendix + References 250 Existing Housing Composition 252 Population 254 Housing Construction 256 Credit Rating and Equity 258 Alternative Models 259 Bibliography 264 Websites 265 Video

The Right to Dwell

Chapter 1

Current Situation

Liveability Unaffordability The liveability agenda pursued in Copenhagen is contributing to unaffordable housing for its people.

The Right to Dwell

Liveability COPENHAGEN IS TOP OF THE TABLE

In 2016 Copenhagen was again named the world’s most liveable city, this time by the design magazine, Metropolis. This follows a string of accolades relating to liveability and quality of life bestowed upon the city since the early 2000’s.

Set up as indexes or tables these awards aim to provide a rationalised comparison between international cities. In our increasingly globalised world, the race to attract businesses and knowledge workers to cities has given these awards importance in both city governance and planning.

2016 - Most Liveable City, Metropolis 2016 - 4th most liveable city in the world, Monocle Magazine 2016 - Copenhagen in top 10 best cities for W, Mercer 2016 - 1st Copenhagen is the winner of “Best City,” Wallpaper 2016 - 2nd on the Global Destination Sustainability Index 2015 - 3rd on Acardis Sustainable Cities Index, Acardis 2015 - 4th Most Dynamic City in Europe, City Momentum Index 2015 - 8th in Quality of Living, Mercer

2015 - 1st Bicycle City, Copenhagenize 2015 - 15th Innovation Cities TM Index

2014 – 1st World’s Greenest City, GGEI 2014 - 1st Green Economy Leader Report on Copenhagen, LSE 2014 - 1st Copenhagen wins a World Smart Cities Award 2014 - 1st on CNN’s Top 10 Healthiest Cities 2014 - 1st on “10 smart cities in Europe” list, Fast Company 2014 - 6th best city in the world for sport, Sportcal 2014 - 1st World’s “Most Liveable City”, Monocle Magazine 2012 - 9th Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey 2010 - 11th Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey 2010 - 8th Innovation Cities TM Index,

2009 - 1st European Green City, Siemens 2008 - Copenhagen Recognised as Future Innovative City 2008 - 11th Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey

2004 - 2nd Quality of Living, MERCER 01 Some of Copenhagen’s awards. Opposite: Image of Liveability from Metropolis website.

The Right to Dwell

What is Liveability? QUALITIES JUDGED

When awarding their “top cities”, indexes consider different factors ranging from civil unrest to the number of bookshops. Consequently the definition of 'liveability' takes on various guises depending on both the agenda of the index compiler and their target audience. However, there is a common thread in all indexes focused on assessing the qualities which will attract their target market to both work and live in the city. Some of these factors, such as housing availability, public spaces and public transport relate directly to the planning of the city. If we consider the increasing importance placed on obtaining top rankings, and city planning as a tool to do this, then in many ways 'liveability' is playing an important role in shaping both our current and future city.

Cafés Culture Environment Stability Infrastructure Sustainability Education Health Connectivity Transportation Libraries Unemployment Cycling routes Commute Bookshops Green space Artist subsidies Censorship Corruption Civil unrest Public transport Water Quality Financial Capital Business Activity

01 Access to Healthcare

02 Green Space

03 Business Activity

04 Culture

05 Water Quality

06 Public Realm

The Right to Dwell

Liveability Trends ATTRACTING PEOPLE TO THE CITY

01 Graph showing population growth in Copenhagen in relation to the liveability agenda and the inaugural years of some of the liveability indexes. SOURCE: statbank.dk

2000

1990

LIVE 1980

1970

1960

UNLIVEABLE CITY

Population of Copenhagen

750000

future population projection (municipality of Copenhagen)

2040

2020

2010

2030

FUTURE PROJECTIONS

EABILITY AGENDA

450000

what if the city becomes unliveable again?

The Right to Dwell

Liveability Trends

1990

2000

ALL ON THE UP...BUT FOR WHOM?

Copenhagen's population dropped to a historic low in the late 1980's and early 1990's, (see graph on previous pages). At this point the city, close to bankruptcy, may have tended towards unliveability. However following the adoption of a strategy to re-brand the city as attractive and ‘liveable,’ to keep people and tax revenue in the city,

the population started to rise. Considering that Copenhagen's population has seen continuous growth from this point (when the 'liveability' agenda was first posited) throughout the 2000's (when many Quality of Life indexes first appeared) suggests that liveability's aim of making the city attractive to people has been working. The

01 Since the 1990’s there has been up trends in many ‘liveability’ qualities. SOURCE: statbank.dk

NO. OF LIVEABILITY INDEXES POPULATION

HEALTHCARE FOREIGN BUSINESS EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

CYCLISTS

municipality's projections of continued population growth suggest that the present approach of planning the city, to create growth, is considered a long term strategy. Fo l l ow i n g a n d e n c o u ra g i n g t h i s population growth since the 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s there is a clear upwards trend in many measured liveability markers, as illustrated above.

2017

2010

* Values Relatively Adjusted

But what about the hidden elements of the city which until now have not been measured by the indexes?

The Right to Dwell

The Cost of Liveability COPENHAGEN IS BOTTOM OF THE TABLE IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY

Roma

London

While Copenhagen may hold a top ranking position for liveability, it is a different picture in other areas. In comparison to other European capitals it holds second lowest position in terms of affordability. This means that Copenhagen is one of the most expensive cities in Europe.

COPENHAGEN

Stockholm

Helsinki

Paris Dublin

Culham

Amsterdam

MĂźnchen

Wien

Brussels

Karlsruhe

Berlin

Varese

Bonn

Madrid

Ljubljana

Valletta

Athina

Lisboa

Bratislava

Tallinn

Zagreb

Lefkosia

Praha

Riga

LEAST EXPENSIVE

MOST EXPENSIVE

01 Although number 1 for liveability, Copenhagen is second bottom for cost of living in Europe (2015). SOURCE: europa.eu

Vilnius

% of People who say it is easy to find an affordable house (2015)

Valletta

COPENHAGEN

Warszawa Wien

Tallinn

Roma

ReykjavĂk

Riga

Praha Paris

Oslo

Luxembourg

Stockholm

Sofia Madrid Lisboa Ljubljana London

Helsinki

Bratislava

Brussel

Budapest

Bucuresti

Lefkosia

Zagreb

Athina Ankara Berlin

Amsterdam

In relation to the affordability of housing, Copenhagen is also positioned towards the bottom of the rankings. Only 8% of people in the city say they can easily find suitable housing at a reasonable price. This would imply that the city is then unaffordable for 92% of the population.

02 Although number 1 for liveability, Copenhagen is near the bottom for affordability of housing (2015). SOURCE: europa.eu

The Right to Dwell

What is Affordability? SPENDING LESS THAN 40% OF YOUR DISPOSABLE INCOME ON HOUSING

Affordability is spending < 40% of your disposable income on your mortgage or rent per month. [Eurostat] Housing Affordability is defined in various ways by various organisations and governments. However, for the purposes of this research, the definition from the European Union Body, Eurostat, has been chosen as the most representative. They state that for housing to be considered as not being a burden for households and hence affordable then it must not cost: â&#x20AC;&#x153;40 % or more of their equivalised disposable incomeâ&#x20AC;? (eurostat.eu). Hence, how affordable the city is for each person varies based on their personal income and the average prices of housing in the city. Above this level the burden of housing costs become too great and then the other aspects of life, which we have come to expect access to in the contemporary city (such as food, drink, leisure, entertainment, savings, the perusal of dreams, etc.), become increasingly hindered.

100% % of disposable income

UNAFFORDABLE AFFORDABLE when it is less than 40% of disposable income.

HOUSING COST

40%

01 Defining affordability. SOURCE: eurostat.eu

The Right to Dwell

Liveability + Unaffordability WITH THE FOCUS ON LIVEABILITY HOUSE PRICES HAVE INCREASED

As the city has become more ‘liveable’ it has also become more unaffordable. Since the advent of the liveability agenda in the 1990’s house prices in Copenhagen have risen far faster than average wages and family income.

Houses are now almost 10x the average yearly salary in comparison to 4x in 1995. The last time houses were this unaffordable was in 2006, just before the financial crisis. The continuation of the current trend could indicate another bubble.

696,000

x 3 Family Income x 4 Average Wage 218,000 162,000

01 House prices have increased dramatically when compared with average yearly wages. SOURCE: statbank.dk

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

HOUSE PRICE

x 8 Family Income x 10 Average Wage

x 9.6 Family Income

x 13 Average Wage

average value for Copenhagen (dkk)

3,350,000

FAMILY INCOME

423,000

WAGE

305,000

2015

2014

2013

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2012

SECOND HOUSING BUBBLE?

FINANCIAL CRISIS

The Right to Dwell

Un-liveability Trends

2000

1990

COPENHAGEN’S UNAFFORDABILITY IS COINCIDING WITH MANY DOWNWARD TRENDS

The lack of affordability in the city is being mirrored by a worrying number of other downward trends. These tendencies are not so easily measured and yet they have a large impact on the quality of life of the city’s citizens. 01 Although liveability trends were on the up, a number of other trends relating to the city have been falling in recent years. SOURCE: statbank.dk

2017

2010

PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FREEDOM FROM HOUSING DEBT BURDEN

EQUALITY

FREEDOM FROM HOUSEHOLD DEBT

AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING

* Values Relatively Adjusted

The Right to Dwell

Un-Liveability LIVEABILITY CAN TEND TOWARDS UN-LIVEABILITY IF IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE

The qualities promoted by the liveability agenda are highly desirable for most people, however they come at a cost. Until recently the affordability of the city was excluded from the majority of the indexes. Consequently the question: who is the ‘liveable’ city for? was de-emphasised. The city may offer great qualities, but if ordinary citizens cannot afford to live and dwell in the city then is it really liveable? In 2015 Monocle added cost of living to their index criteria. Following this Copenhagen fell 10 places in the ranking system, which as explained by Monocle was because: ‘Copenhagen is expensive in every regard.’ If Copenhagen is to remain ‘liveable’ and continue to pursue a development strategy of growth by attracting people to live and work in the city, then affordability must become a priority. The current liveability agenda is not sustainable for the city.

Currently the liveability framework is leading to unaffordability and this is destroying liveability.

2013

2014

2015 + Affordability

COPENHAGEN

Tokyo

Melbourne

Tokyo

Vienna

Helsinki

Melbourne

Berlin

Tokyo

Stockholm

Melbourne

Vienna

Helsinki

Sydney

Zurich

Vienna

Stockholm

Zurich

Vancouver

Munich

Helsinki

Sydney

Kyoto

Munich

Auckland

Fukuoka

Zurich

Hong Kong

Sydney

COPENHAGEN

Fukuoka

Auckland

Fukuoka

Kyoto

Hong Kong

Singapore

Paris

Berlin

Kyoto

Singapore

Vancouver

Paris

Hamburg

Singapore

Madrid

Honolulu

Madrid

Auckland

Madrid

Paris

Lisbon

Vancouver

Amsterdam

Hong Kong

Berlin

Hamburg

Amsterdam

Barcelona

Hamburg

Amsterdam

Lisbon

Geneva

Portland

Oslo

San Francisco

Oslo

Barcelona

# 10

01 Copenhagen has seen a fall in its liveability ranking. SOURCE: Monocle - https://monocle.com/film/affairs/ quality-of-life-survey-2013/

The Right to Dwell

Unaffordability Distorted City The unaffordability of the city has affected its make up in many different ways.

The Right to Dwell

Who Has the Right to Dwell? THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSEHOLD TYPES IN COPENHAGEN IS BEING AFFECTED

With a large variety of family types situated within the Copenhagen municipality (small cross-section visualised below), the question of who is being included and excluded gets brought into context. The rise of liveability has corresponded with the rise of unaffordability throughout the city. This is putting a strain on a lot of household types and also pushing various household types out of the city.

Happy family

Just married

Yours and Mine

Part time dad

Single mum

Numerous

Baby on the way

High school friends

01 The housing scenario has failed to adjust to new social compositions of Copenhagen.

Lovers

Grandparents

Collective

Best friends

Airbnb

Elderly couple + carer

Divorced mum with children

Exchange students

Living at home

Strangers

Artist and studio

Leaving home

Widower

Unemployed

Single lady

Taking care of parents

The Right to Dwell

Financially Excluded

IF ALL CITIZENS SPENT 40% OF THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME ON HOUSING THEN ONLY 19% WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD A MORTGAGE FOR AN AVERAGE FLAT IN COPENHAGEN

81%

01 Graph of Copenhagen Income distribution. Affordability calculated from monthly mortgage repayments of 10,330kr per month (for average flat price in Copenhagen) as percentage of disposable income. SOURCE: statbank.dk.dk

200 000

175 000

150 000

125 000

100 000

75 000

50 000

25 000

EXCLUDED

50 000 40 000

19%

+500 000

500 000

450 000

400 000

350 000

300 000

250 000

225 000

no. of people

10 000

20 000

30 000

AFFORDABLE

disposable income dkk/year

Line of affordability for average priced ďŹ&#x201A;at in Copenhagen

The Right to Dwell

Financially Excluded Groups IF ALL CITIZENS SPENT 40% OF THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME ON HOUSING THEN THE MAJORITY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD COPENHAGEN

15,997

10,616

9,719 9,462

7,826 7,525

01 Graph of 40% of the monthly disposable income of various household types vs. mortgage repayments for avg. real estate. SOURCE: statbank.dk

Single men

Pensioners

Single dad

Couples with children

Couples

Self-Employed

Top Managers

6,335

Avg. price single family home: 4,120,000 kr. Mortgage repayments: 16,500 kr pcm

Avg. price flat: 2,570,000KR. Mortgage repayments: 10,330 kr pcm

6,315 5,963

5,793 5,320

Students

Unemployed

Single women

Single mum

When the EU recommendations for 40% of disposable income to be spent on housing is combined with a variety of wage types, the reality of household affordance is visualised. All those below the line are effectively unable to afford the city.

The Right to Dwell

Excluded Age Groups

THE RECENT POPULATION SHIFT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CONTRIBUTE TO AN EXCLUSIVE CITY

LESS ELDERLY

MORE FAMILIES

MORE STUDENTS

Comparing the age distribution of Copenhagen’s population offers an insight into the way that the liveability agenda has changed the make-up of the city. Compared to the 1980’s city the liveable city of today is composed of very different groups. Older

people have left the city as families and students have been attracted here. This demographic sorting of the population could be considered to be leading to a distorted and segregated city.

1980

pre-liveable city

80+

diverse + inclusive demographics

75 - 79 70 - 74 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 10 - 14 5-9 0-4 Female

Male

2017

liveable city? uniform + exclusive demographic

80+ 75 - 79 70 - 74 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 10 - 14 5-9 0-4 Female

Male

01 Copenhagen Population by Age 1980. Demographics suggest that the city is liveable for all age groups. SOURCE: statbank.dk 02 Copenhagen Population by Age 2017. The liveable city is only for certain groups of people. SOURCE: statbank.dk

The Right to Dwell 80+

Danes Moving Out NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO STAY IN THE CITY

An increasing number of Danes are migrating from Copenhagen to the suburbs. 2015 was the first time in the past two decades that more Danes were leaving the city than moving in (Politiken). The largest shift is seen in the age groups of 30-39 years, and 0-15 years. This is proof that families are struggling to stay in the city as their family grows. Shown opposite is the comparable size of house one can get for the same price in various Danish municipalities. One can get a lot more space for ones money outside of Copenhagen municipality. This is especially important for young families with lower incomes.

131 m2

HELSINGØR

187 m2

GRIBSKOV 244 m2

HALSNÆS 135 m2

FREDENSBORG 146 m2

HILLERØD

97 m2

HØRSHOLM

133 m2

ALLERØD

393 m2

ODSHERRED 104m2

FURESØ

139 m2

182 m2

EGEDAL

FREDERIKSSUND

116 m2

124 m2

BALLERUP

HERLEV 80 m2

131 m2 152 m2 GLOSTRUP ALBERTSLUND HØJE-TAASTRUP

COPENHAGEN

143 m2

134 m2

BRØNDBY

238 m2

116 m2

HOLBAEK

125 m2

337 m2

202 m2

KALUNDBORG

LEJRE

HVIDOVRE VALLENSBÆK

125 m2 145 m2

ROSKILDE

GREVE

137 m2

SOLRØD 253 m2

SORØ 216 m2

180 m2

RINGSTED

KØGE

277 m2

SLAGELSE

249 m2

278 m2

STEVNS

NÆSTVED 305 m2

FAXE

440 m2

VORDINGBORG

458 m2

GULDBORGSUND

01 SOURCE: http://politiken.dk/oekonomi/bolig/art5577432/K%C3%B8benhavnske-b%C3%B8rnefamilier-veksler-bylejligheden-til-et-hus-i-forstaden

The Right to Dwell

Limited Housing Choice THE HOUSING MARKET DISCOURAGES DIVERSITY AND ENCOURAGES A MONOCULTURE

60% of new housing in Copenhagen consists of 2 room apartments. Scandinavian Property Magasin 2015.

Currently new housing in Copenhagen comes with many restrictions. This includes a lack of flexibility, small floor areas, lack of attention to public vs. private space, and shared facilities. The current developments produce a restrictive, repetitive and depersonalised floor plan. This adds to the mounting monoculture within the housing market. 60% of apartments are two room units. This is not providing for the wide variety of household types as first discussed in this chapter. If Copenhagen prides itself on a cohesive and inclusive city, the housing should reflect this diversity.

01 Plans of the number of rooms: The current housing stock in Copenhagen does not accommodate a diversity of people in terms of income or family configuration.

The Right to Dwell

Current Options WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DWELL IN THE CITY?

1. Work longer hours What : To afford current housing one could try to increase ones income. This could include working weekends, not taking holidays or days off and working multiple jobs. This extra time working towards paying off a mortgage takes away from spending time in the city and being with friends and family.

01 Due to the unaffordability of housing people are often forced to work more to pay for it. This could lead to an unhealthy work-life balance.

The Right to Dwell

Current Options WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DWELL IN THE CITY?

2. Minimum Existence + Moving What : One can surrender to the market prices and the existence minimum this implies. However, the housing offer in Copenhagen is not flexible enough to accommodate the inherent changeability in a householdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s composition. The inflexibility of current housing models limits a familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to customise their home to meet their changing needs. This could see one having to move multiple times or rent. Moving costs money and renting excludes one from the long-term financial gains of property ownership.

01 Drawings of how space requirement can change through the course of one families lifetime. The Copenhagen housing market currently does not include space for all of these at an affordable price.

The Right to Dwell

Current Options WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DWELL IN THE CITY?

3. Leave the city What : If one leaves the city one can pay an affordable proportion of income for housing, and have a home that is of an appropriate size. The liveable city should be accessible to all. By leaving through necessity and not choice, one is effectively excluded from living in the most ‘liveable’ city.

4. Pay more than 40% What : Accepting housing repayments which are more than what is termed affordable. This means one doesn’t have sufficient disposable income to enjoy the city. Instead, the financial pressure of housing payments places stress on one’s personal life and ability to use and enjoy the city.

01 Housing unaffordability can lead to people being forced out of the city and hence sacrificing their chance to live in â&#x20AC;&#x153;the most liveable cityâ&#x20AC;?.

The Right to Dwell

Unequal + Exclusive

500

1000

[gini index]

1500

2000

2500

3000

UNAFFORDABILITY IS LEADING TO AN UNEQUAL + EXCLUSIVE CITY

The negative impact of unaffordability on the makeup of the city is illustrated in these two figures. Figure 1 looks at the rise of Copenhagenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s income inequality via the Gini coefficient. This increase closely follows the rise in house prices. Figure 2 shows the unequal integration of social housing (almeneboliger) into the

municipality. The large majority is pushed to the edges, whilst the central city has very little or no social housing. This results in a spatial sorting based on income which is leading to an exclusive centre and hence unequal city.

01 Inequality, measured by the Gini Index, has increased in Copenhagen alongside rising house prices. SOURCE: Statbank.dk

2015

2010

2005

Super Imposed House price increase (DKK thousand) 2000

1995

Gini Index for Inequality

main colour

second

third

fourth

44 91 main colour 100% for arrows and 30 thin lines 42

33 27

17 16

12 15

15 25

Sc ho

2 13

7 5

10 8

28 4

4 30

22 32

PUBLIC HOUSING BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

School districts as of August 2016 and public housing as of September 2015.

0 - 20 % 20 - 30 % 30 - 100 %

02 Public Housing is concentrated in the outer areas of the city. SOURCE: The Building and Housing Register and the City of Copenhagen

The Right to Dwell

Chapter 2

Why Is This Happening?

Competitive City Developer Focused The competitive city is driving up land prices and hence limiting development options in the city

The Right to Dwell

Competitive City THE CITY IS THE FOCUS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS & PLANNING HAS BECOME A TOOL FOR GAINING SUCCESS

Copenhagen’s move towards the liveable city in the 1990’s was prompted by a continued decrease in industry and population in the city which, due to decreased tax revenue left the municipality almost bankrupt. To find solutions to this the Stallknecht committee was established. Their report, Hovedstaden: Hvad vil vi med den? (The Capital: What do we want to do?) was influential in prompting a shift to a cityfocused and entrepreneurial style of governance, whereby urban planning was seen as a tool for developing a competitive city, (Simpson, 2017). In this context, the improvement of the city was seen as a catalyst for attracting people, businesses and their much-needed tax money back to the city. In the face of increasing globalisation and the idea of the city as an internationally competitive entity, Copenhagen thus became nationally important in reversing the affect of declining industry and stimulating growth for the entire Danish Economy, (Jensen et. al., 2010; Harvey, 1989). This approach to city-focused development and planning as a tool for economic growth was reinforced in the National Planning Report in 2006, which states:

‘Denmark can only strengthen its global position by creating cities that can compete at the European level. The cities must promote economic growth...’ We argue that this shift in city development, in promoting the liveability agenda, has been complicit in the rising unaffordability of housing in the city.

> 100,000 population Greater Copenhagen Focus Area

> 20,000 population Small-town regions

Eastern Jylland Focus Area Transport corridors

Copenhagen

01 Copenhagen focused planning. SOURCE: Adapted from 2006 National Planning Report, Ministry of Environment Denmark.

The Right to Dwell

Infrastructural City THE LIVEABILITY AGENDA HAS PROMOTED AN ‘INFRASTRUCTURE FIRST’ APPROACH TO CITY DEVELOPMENT

With the aim of urban planning to attract business and sustain economic growth in the city, the Stallknecht committee’s report advocated for investment in the public realm and infrastructure. A key part of this approach was the expansion of Copenhagen, initially via the Øresund bridge to Sweden, the Ørestad development and the construction of the metro. (Jensen et. al., 2010; Harvey, 1989; Simpson, 2017). A public-private company, By og Havn was established to develop the land owned by the municipality and national government and to sell the land for housing / commercial development. The primary goal of By og Havn has been to maximise profit from these activities to pay for the corresponding metro infrastructure. This established a precedent of development based on infrastructure, which continues to influence how the municipality approaches development today. Copenhagen’s municipal plan, 2015, states:

This approach may be seen to contribute towards both limiting land supply, to that which is deemed to be suitably infrastructurally serviced, and in selling land which is already been ‘improved,’ raising land prices considerably. This has had an influence on the affordability of housing built on the land.

‘we will only promote urban development in locations where it is possible to produce a comprehensive plan for financing the expansion of municipal services and infrastructure.’ 01 Selling land for development funded metro lines 1 + 2. SOURCE: Invest CPH 02 The city continues to follow this strategy in Nordhavn. SOURCE: COBE

The Right to Dwell

Control of Land Supply THE MUNICIPALITY CONTROLS DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN 3 TIME-FRAMES

This infrastructural approach to land supply can be seen in the plan for Copenhagen’s development. The 2015 municipal plan sets out focus areas for development in 3 time-frames: 1. 2015 - 2020 2. 2021 - 2027 3. Post 2027 prospective areas The long-term control of land supply allows the municipality to ensure that ‘liveability’ infrastructure is in place before the land is released for housing. While this may be beneficial in many senses the expectation and potential for future rights to build brought about by inclusion in these zones is complicit in raising land and hence housing prices.

‘Changing legal status, or even the mere expectation of it, has within a few years multiplied land prices’ -Andersen et. al 1995

01 All current development areas according to the Copenhagen Municipal Plan 2015.

Group 1: 2015-2020 Group 2: 2021-2027 Post 2027 prospective area

The Right to Dwell

By & Havn Main Landowner BY OG HAVN OWN OR CONTROL THE MAJORITY OF THIS LAND

One company, By og Havn, own or control the majority of the land in the current and future development areas. This could be considered as giving them an unfair amount of control over the development of our future city.

01 By og Havn are responsible for the development of the majority of the future city. SOURCE: byoghavn.dk

By og Havn Other Owner

The Right to Dwell

By & Havn Drive for Profit THE MAIN COMPANY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY IS PROFIT DRIVEN

By og Havn is set up to generate as much profit as possible. The company was formed in 2007 and took control of previous industrial land owned by Copenhagen Port Authority, Frederiksbergbaneselskabet and The Ørestad Development Corporation. By og Havn is a private company owned by the Municipality of Copenhagen and the Danish state. The company was established to generate finance for the construction of the Metro as part of the shift towards entrepreneurial tendencies in the 1990’s. It does so by selling and developing areas along the harbour and in Ørestad. Furthermore, it acts as a developer in joint ventures, such as Amerika Have which is a collaboration with TK Development and AP Pension. Therefore By og Havn sell land to the highest bidder. This focus on creating the highest possible surplus from selling off the land forces out those who do not have either the size of company or capital to compete with the ‘big actors’. The municipality’s dependency on financial return for future infrastructure investments does not allow land to be sold lower than market value and keeps prices high. Letting the strive for profit dictate the cities development puts affordability in the background of decision making.

95%

CPH MUNICIPALITY

DANISH STATE

BY OG HAVN

WHO IS BY OG HAVN ?

WHAT DO BY OG HAVN DO ?

OWN LAND

Own land

DEVELOPER

USER

BY OG HAVN

Divide land into plots

$$ $$ 1. Sell plot to developer 2. Develop plot themselves and sell Money made funds metro.

THE METRO

01 The development scheme and company structure of By og Havn. * While it was 55% Copenhagen Municipality and 45% the Danish government (ministry of transport) in 2007. Source: Act no. 551 of 6 June 2007

The Right to Dwell

Focus on Developers BY OG HAVNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S PROFIT DRIVE RESULTS IN A PLOT STRUCTURE AIMED AT ACHIEVING THE HIGHEST PRICE

By og Havnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s need for profit results in land being sold to the highest bidder. This is usually an established developer who has the financial capacity to do so. As the return on investment on larger plots is greater, Developers and By og Havn hence favour larger plots as it means greater profit and fewer transactions and legal costs. This has led to new development areas being parcelled into plots which suit the developers needs.

Large plot sizes reduce the diversity of development, as non-professionals are unlikely to come up with the capital to acquire them. Hence planning actions, like laying out plots have a significant impact on the diversity of the city. Large areas of the city developed by one group add further to the mono-culture and emerging lack of diversity of the city.

01 Plots in the southern part of the Ă&#x2DC;restad development area.

02 Typically smaller plot sizes in older urban areas.

The Right to Dwell

25% Social Housing STILL LEAVES 75% OF HOUSING UNAFFORDABLE

In 2015 the then state government introduced a regulation to the Danish Planning Act, giving the municipalities the power to request all new developments to include 25% social housing. This is a reaction to the dominance of developers within the kommune. Previously companies and developers were in complete control of the type of housing that would be built. This is a step in the right direction, but further action needs to be undertaken to give everyone the right to dwell. What happens to those who donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t qualify for being placed at the head of the queue for social housing and canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t afford the expensive housing offered by the market?

Splitting housing into subsidised and expensive real estate leaves a large segment of citizens out.

01 SOURCE: City Of Copenhagen, Municipal Plan 2015 : The Coherent City.

75%

STILL UNAFFORDABLE FOR MOST

25%

SOCIAL HOUSING

The Right to Dwell

Developers in Control Paying for their Profit

The Right to Dwell

Developers in Control

Conservative Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Party Liberal (Venstre) Private Developer

Social Democrat Social Liberal Party Centre Democrats Almene Boligselskaber

Private Andelsboliger

Public Authorities

01 Private development is now the main way of building housing in Copenhagen. SOURCE: Statbank

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

THE NEW BUILD MARKET IS DOMINATED BY THE PRIVATE DEVELOPER

Liberal (Venstre) Conservative Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Party

Social Democrat Social Liberal Party Socialist Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Party

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

The overwhelming majority of new housing units built in 2016 were by developers, who procure housing in a speculative manner. This results in a profitbased cycle that pushes up housing prices

and currently makes buying in the housing market unaffordable for a large proportion of Copenhagenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residents. The decline of all other forms of housing development has given the developer a monopoly over the sector. This control of the market allows prices to be primarily determined by these developers. By shifting this balance and liberating the people in the market it may be possible to begin to create better and more affordable housing for everyone.

2010

99.8% of new builds in 2016 were by private developers. This is in comparison to 30% in 1990.

Liberal (Venstre) Liberal Alliance Conservative PP

The Right to Dwell

Missing Homes LAND AREAS THAT ARE NOT PROFITABLE ENOUGH FOR A DEVELOPER ARE NOT BEING USED

There are 30,000 missing homes that have legal permission to be built to relieve the housing shortage. However these are not being built. The municipality relies upon private development to build the large majority of housing stock. Due to the developers dependency on profit, they will only develop a certain area when it meets their surplus land value assessment. This is usually around 20%. The plots with the least risk will be chosen. Other, less profitable sites, which the municipality have made available will be left. This, reliance on the market means that there are now around 30,000 legal permissions for housing in Copenhagen which are not being built upon. This is equivalent to an area of housing the size on Gladsaxe Kommune.

The population of the city is growing faster than housing is being supplied, a significant factor in the increasing market price. The profit motive of the developers means that they have little incentive to overly increase the supply by building on these less profitable sites. For them:

constrained supply = increases demand = forces prices up = more profit Alternative forms of development could be used to build upon many of these sites. The use of other development models to increase supply of housing is a key step towards producing more housing and creating a more affordable and liveable city.

MISSING HOMES

01 30,000 missing homes is equivalent to an area the size of Gladsaxe Kommune.

The Right to Dwell

The Developer Model Cost PAYING FOR DEVELOPERS PROFIT AFFECTS AFFORDABILITY

20% of what you pay for your house goes to the developer as profit. The speculative developer model can be broken down into various parts to be better understood: 1. Starting at the base: the developer takes out a loan to finance the cost of land, construction, management as well as the design of the building. A+B+C = loan. 2. The loan the developer takes out accumulates an interest repayment. This cost is added to the price of the final house. 3. The developer then adds 20% of A+B+C+D onto the total cost as a profit margin. 4. A VAT tax of 25% of A+B+C+D+E is then added on top. This creates the total market price of a dwelling. When breaking down the cost of an apartment one would expect the bigger part of expenditures to be eaten up by the actual development and construction of a building. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s astonishing how much capital goes to intermediaries like developers and lending institutions.

Market 48 000

50 000

VAT = 25% 02 VAT accounts for 25% of the total costs after developer profit.

F. vat

40 000

02 20% developer profit of investment

01 Desired developer profit accounts for 20% of total costs after the interest on the loan repayment.

E. profit developer 01

2% bond/loan interest + 5% loan repayment

D. interest loan

14% of construction

C. management + design

30 000

Depending upon project this can range between 15%-25%.

18,000 dkk / m2

20 000 B. construction

10 000 10,000 dkk / m2 Including building rights A. land

0 dkk/sqm

95 sqm

market 4 560 000 dkk

01 Speculative Developer Model. SOURCE: see appendix.

The Right to Dwell

Developer model Exclusion The current developer model is producing a housing product that is standardised, repetitive, expensive and exclusive.

The Right to Dwell

Selling the Dream: Exterior BUILDING INDUSTRY FUELLING A MONOCULTURE OF HOUSING

The profit-driven industry is producing homogeneous architecture. Pictured on the right are external renderings from developments being established in different areas of Copenhagen. The similarity between them illustrates the notion of a monoculture being provided by a profit driven building industry. The same money-saving techniques are used throughout the building trade, which in turn produces a very similar output. Through all of these images we can see the portrayal of an idealised lifestyle; being close to water, having plenty of green space and nature, space for children to play and a highly pedestrianised city. All of these factors fall into the marketing scheme - creating a standardised vision of dwelling in the city.

01 Nordhavnen - Development: Various. SOURCE: nordhavnen.dk; 02 Sydhavnen - Development: Westcoast park 17. SOURCE: westcoastpark.dk; 03 Carlsberg - Development: Sherfig Hus. SOURCE: carlsbergbyen.dk

The Right to Dwell

Selling the Dream: Interior REPRODUCING IS ONLY SAVING DEVELOPERS TIME AND MONEY

Standardisation is still producing an unaffordable monoculture On the interior furniture is commonly seen as the means of individualisation and occupation of a home. But when one looks closely at the images used by real-estate agents, every one of them seems to sell the same vision of a home. Across three different developments spread across the city one can see the same white interior with wooden floors. This a product of a standardised construction industry and standardised vision of a housing dweller. This use of repetition is effective for reducing the hours of design required for individualisation and is a cost effective method. However, the approach of saving money on individualisation ultimately limits the architectural potentials and dictates a single lifestyle to every resident. These standardised dwellings are still unaffordable.

ulvbelægl at gøre dit

re forskellielplank og æ.

eder på dk/visualisemolehuse-

ASK NATUR HVID MAT LAK

EG NATUR MAT LAK

GARDINER EG NATUR OLIERET

EG HVID MAT LAK

Fisher Danmark A/S er Danmarks førende leverandør af gardiner og solafskærmninger. De har et bredt sortiment af lamelgardiner, persienner, rullegardiner og plisségardiner i forskellige farver, mønstre og materialer. Behovet for gardiner er forskellig alt efter boligens belig-

EG HVID OLIERET

01 Carlsberg - Development: Sherfig Hus. SOURCE: carlsbergbyen.dk; 02 SOURCE: sundmolehusene.dk; 03 Ørsted - SOURCE: boligsiden.dk

Nordhavnen - Development: Sundmole Hus.

The Right to Dwell

genhe stil. Fis rer din overlad

Bestil d henvis opnå e

In-flexibility THE LACK OF FLEXIBILITY DISRUPTING EVOLVING FAMILY TYPOLOGIES

Lack of flexibility means inhabitants have to move home more often. The inflexible plan in this case restricts the expansion and contraction of the family. The negative effect of this is a continual moving process. This not only is inconvenient, with the continuous increase in prices of larger dwelling in the same area is often unaffordable. It forces the changing family typology to have to move further from the city. Unsettling children, moving further away from communities and friends.

Nordhavn, 2 rooms, 73m2.

Nordhavn, 3 rooms, 109m2. 7.395.000 kr.

Islands Brygge, 2-4 rooms, 159m2. 7.050.000 kr.

Valby Maskinfabrik, 3 rooms, 111m2. 13.000kr pcm.

Ã&#x2DC;restad, 5 rooms, 134 m2. 4.500.000 kr.

Valby Maskinfabrik, 4 rooms, 117m2. 14.800kr pcm.

The Right to Dwell

M2 vs. M3 TWO EXTREMES ENCOURAGING UNAFFORDABILITY

In theory the average apartment size is required to be 95m2, but instead two extremes are being developed. Municipal rules require to have an average apartment size of 95m2. This, however is an average across the whole block, resulting in very large and very small units being developed. As shown on the right, apartments sizes tend to diverge towards very large or very small, while the middle gets left out. This divergence creates, on one hand extreme prices for large luxury spaces, and on the other, cheap flats that may be questionable in the quality of life they support

Nordhavn, 4 rooms, 132m2.

Carlsberg, 2 rooms, 81 m2.

Carlsberg, 1 room, 42m2. 2.595.000 kr.

Carlsberg, 1 room, 53m2. 3.295.000 kr.

Carlsberg, 4 rooms, 103m2. 5.095.000 kr.

Nordhavn, 3 rooms, 109m2. 7.395.000 kr.

The Right to Dwell

Public vs. Private LOSS OF THRESHOLD FOR PROFIT

In the drive for profit the private-public threshold has been lost. Through optimisation of the apartment layout, there are spatial consequences regarding privacy within the dwelling. Bedrooms opening into kitchens and living rooms, creating virtually no threshold into the dwellings private spaces. This lack of transitional space within the dwelling leads to a merger of living space with circulation, sacrificing both potential floor area as well as functionality.

Nordhavn, 2 rooms, 69m2.

Sydhavn, 4 rooms, 90m2. 18.000kr pcm.

Sydhavn, 3 rooms, 90m2. 17.000kr pcm.

Nordhavn, 4 rooms, 118m2. 7.495.000 kr.

Sydhavn, 3 rooms, 101m2. 15.600kr pcm.

Sydhavn, 3 rooms, 93m2. 16.200kr pcm.

The Right to Dwell

Access: Shared Space? LARGE COMMON CIRCULATION SPACES ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR FLOOR AREA

Large common circulation spaces account for a significant proportion of floor area in dwellings. Shown on the right are three floor plans that have large circulation areas attached. In the case of 03 in Nordhavn the entrance space is nearly the equivalent of the dwelling. The argument here is that if this circulation area was designed in a more effective way, one would not be paying for entrance area - but floor area that was a part of ones own home.

01 Islands Brygge, 2 rooms, 57m2. 2.845.000 kr.

Islands Brygge, 3 rooms, 95m2. 3.950.000kr

Nordhavn, 2 rooms, 71m2.

The Right to Dwell

Chapter 3

Alternatives

A set of goals to develop an inclusive and diverse architecture:

Preserving liveability through affordability, creating usability, and designing flexibility, for a more inclusive city that embraces diversity.

The Right to Dwell

Preserving liveability through affordability, creating usability, and designing flexibility, for a more inclusive city that embraces diversity. Based upon the city principals of quality of lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;including the built and natural environments, economic prosperity, social stability and equity, educational opportunity, and cultural, entertainment and recreation possibilities.

The Right to Dwell

Preserving liveability through affordability, creating usability, and designing flexibility, for a more inclusive city that embraces diversity. Guided by the principle that housing costs should be no more than 40% of disposable income.

The Right to Dwell

100

Preserving liveability through affordability, creating usability, and designing flexibility, for a more inclusive city that embraces diversity. The ability to live in and use the city, instead of just existing. Expanded disposable income to engage with the city.

101

The Right to Dwell

102

Preserving liveability through affordability, creating usability, and designing flexibility, for a more inclusive city that embraces diversity. The capacity for living space to support different citizens and to adapt to changing conditions.

103

The Right to Dwell

104

Preserving liveability through affordability, creating usability, and designing flexibility, for a more inclusive city that embraces diversity. The fundamental ambition to include people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized.

105

The Right to Dwell

106

Preserving liveability through affordability, creating usability, and designing flexibility, for a more inclusive city that embraces diversity. Creating a variety of housing that provides for a wide variety of people from all backgrounds.

107

The Right to Dwell

Alternative Development Models Affordable + Inclusive City What if we could provide housing in different ways?

The Right to Dwell

How Else Could We Build? UNDERSTANDING HOW ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT MODELS WORK GIVES ONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROPOSE A NEW WAY OF BUILDING OUR FUTURE CITY

The following pages interrogate the economic drivers behind the procurement of housing. They further analyse the current development models, and introduce alternatives from other housing markets , spanning from Germany to Australia. These alternative models propose new methods of procuring housing: from the inclusion of the users within the design process, to communities procuring their homes together. All with the aim of reducing the housing burden on their final occupants.

110

111

The Right to Dwell

Speculative Developer Model THE CURRENT DOMINANT MODEL IN COPENHAGEN

DEVELOPER

LOAN/BOND

The developer takes out a loan/bond to finance the construction process.

LAND

DESIGN MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION

HOME

INTEREST + PROFIT + VAT The mortgage pays for both the developers profit and MORTGAGE interest of the loan/bond.

USER

The speculative development model completely detaches the user from the design process.

+ MAINTENANCE This model demands that the user pays for a mortgage. This ties the user to high interest rates and large amounts of debt. Furthermore, the market valuation

of the property includes the developers loan interest, developers profit and VAT. These additional costs can be avoided in alternative models.

01 Speculative development construction process. SOURCE: multiple (see appendix).

112

User 86 000 Maintenance of building = 1% of market rate per year over 30 years. maintenance

Calculated on a 30 year fixed rate mortgage from rd.dk on 5% downpayment.

user mortgage Mortgage Downpayment 5%

Market 48 000 VAT = 25%

Consultant Fees

VAT

14% profit developer Construction

interest loan

10 000 18 000 dkk/sqm

management + design

20% developer investment.

profit

2% bond/loan interest + 5% loan repayment.

Density 120%

construction

Land Value 10 000 dkk/sqm (8 333 dkk/sqm built)

land

Cost Variables

Mortgage

95 sqm

market 4 560 000 dkk user 8 170 000 dkk

Financial Profit private/state 02 Calculating home-building -breakdown of speculative developer financing (see appendix).

113

The Right to Dwell

Housing Taxonomy HOUSING PROCUREMENT MODELS User 86 000

80 000 maintenance

70 000

60 000

user mortgage

User 57 500 User 53 500

User 52 000

maintenance

50 000

Market 48 000

maintenance maintenance VAT

40 000

Market 40 000

user mortgage profit developer

Market 32 000

management + design

VAT

management + design

construction

Market 30 000

interest loan

30 000

user mortgage

VAT

interest loan

profit developer 20 000 construction

interest loan management + design

construction 10 000

0 dkk/sqm

land

Speculative Developer

Nightingale

Self Procure

Customised [Architect led]

50%

60%

01 Financial housing taxonomy. SOURCE: Multiple (see appendix).

114

To discover alternatives to these models the financial stipulations have to be analysed and compared to reveal their benefits. Each model exhibits variations in ownership, finance and construction.

User 50 500

maintenance User 39 000 user mortgage Market 30 000

maintenance

User 34 000

Market 30 000 interest management + design

maintenance interest management + design user mortgage Market 18 500

construction

User 29 000

Market 22 500

maintenance interest management + design

construction

land

CLT Self Provide

CLT Coop

construction

land

Self build

Social Housing Mortgage

70%

115

120%

150%

Financial Profit private/state

The Right to Dwell

Traditional Models THESE ARE THE MODELS MAINLY USED IN COPENHAGEN User 86 000

80 000 maintenance

70 000

60 000

user mortgage User 53 500

50 000

Market 48 000

maintenance

VAT 40 000 user mortgage

profit developer Market 30 000

interest loan

30 000

management + design

construction

land

20 000

10 000

0 dkk/sqm

Speculative Developer

Nightingale

100% 01 Financial housing taxonomy. SOURCE: Multiple (see appendix).

116

Self Procure

160%

Customised [Architect led]

In order to propose alternatives to the system we need to understand how the current system works.

User 34 000 maintenance

user mortgage Market 18 500

CLT Self Provide

CLT Coop

User 29 000

Market 22 500

maintenance interest management + design

construction

land

Self build

Social Housing [rental] Mortgage

250%

117

Financial Profit private/state

The Right to Dwell

Existing Models SELF PROCURE

When the end-users can individually secure land and building permission they will usually follow this model. They will manage the project themselves hiring the contractors for construction and design. These contractors take a percentage of the construction fees as their payment. Having this access to the land in the first place is difficult and expensive. Other barriers to this form of development include density, as this model is more suitable for low density single family dwellings.

01 Internal view Villa Platan - ADEPT. SOURCE: ADEPT

118

02 Villa Platan - ADEPT. SOURCE: ADEPT

USER USER

MORTGAGE MORTGAGE

Save Save 32 32500 500 dk/.sqm dk/.sqm

Financial Financialbarriers barrierstotoobtain obtain a amortgage. mortgage.Large Largefinancial financial guarantee guaranteerequired. required.

- developer - developer profit profit - loan/bond - loan/bond

LAND LAND User User 5353500 500

DESIGN DESIGN

maintenance maintenance

MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

Single Singlefinancial financial transaction. transaction. Economies Economiesofofscale, scale,higher higher costs costsfor forbuilding buildingmaterials materials and andlabour. labour. Time Timeconsuming consuming management. management.

user user mortgage mortgage Market Market 3030000 000 management management + +design design

HOME HOME Bespoke Bespokedesign designfitting fittingexact exact requirements requirementsofofuser. user.

++ MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE

construction construction

land land

oror Extra ExtraSpace Space Mortgage Mortgage Financial Financial Profit Profit private/state private/state

60% 60%

03 Self Procure financial and construction process. SOURCE: Parvin.

119

The Right to Dwell

Existing Models SELF BUILD

Again the end-users must secure the land, finance and get building permission for the project; but they must also physically build all the parts of the structure themselves. This means that they do not pay for contractorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; profit . However, within this model the individual would usually have construction experience, as the process is time consuming and stressful. This again means this approach is more suitable for low density single family dwellings.

01 Wikihouse 4.0 during construction Source: Arch daily

02 CNC files for download off the web. SOURCE: www.wikihouse.cc

120

USER USER

MORTGAGE MORTGAGE

Financial Financialbarriers barrierstotoobtain obtain a amortgage. mortgage.Large Largefinancial financial guarantee guaranteerequired. required.

Save Save 52 52000 000 dk/.sqm dk/.sqm

LAND LAND

- -reduced reduced construction construction costs costs - -developer developer profit profit - -loan/bond loan/bond

Removal Removalofofmanagement management and anddesign designwithin withinthe the construction constructionprocess. process.

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

Individual Individualrisk riskand and demanding demandingwork workload. load. Experience Experiencewithin withinbuilding building industry industryrequired. required. Time Timeconsuming consuming management. management.

User User 34 34000 000

HOME HOME Bespoke Bespokedesign designfitting fittingexact exact requirements requirementsofofuser. user.

++ MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE

maintenance maintenance Single Singlefinancial financial transaction. transaction. user user mortgage mortgage Market Market 1818500 500 Construction Constructioncosts costsreduced reduced due duetotoremoval removalofoflabour. labour. construction construction

land land

or or Extra ExtraSpace Space

Mortgage Mortgage Financial FinancialProfit Profit private/state private/state

150% 150%

03 Self Build financial and construction process. SOURCE: Parvin

121

The Right to Dwell

Alternative Models OTHER OPTIONS WHICH COULD OFFER MORE AFFORDABILITY + DIVERSITY

80 000

70 000

60 000

User 57 500 User 52 000

maintenance

50 000

maintenance

40 000

Market 40 000

user mortgage

VAT

Market 32 000

interest loan

30 000 VAT

management + design

profit developer interest loan management + design

20 000

construction

construction 10 000

land 0 dkk/sqm

Speculative Developer

Nightingale

50% 01 Financial housing taxonomy. SOURCE: Multiple (see appendix).

122

land

Self Procure

Customised [Architect led]

60%

These alternative models can help one understand how the development process can be manipulated to make more affordable housing.

User 50 500

maintenance User 39 000 user mortgage Market 30 000

maintenance Market 30 000

interest management + design

construction

land

CLT Self Provide

CLT Coop

Self build

Social Housing Mortgage

70%

123

120%

Financial Profit private/state

The Right to Dwell

Alternative Models CLT - COOP

CLT

Community Land Trust set up as a non profit organisation.

LOAN/BOND LAND INTEREST

COOP

DESIGN

Land is purchased and leased to cooperative to separate land from speculation. The land is then leased to a separate organisation, the cooperative.

USER

User becomes member of the cooperative group of residence.

Cooperative manages the construction of the dwellings.

MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION

HOME

MAINTENANCE + MANAGEMENT A CLT acquires the land and leases it to a cooperative which procures housing on behalf of the community. Users buy shares within the cooperative of houses at affordable rates. Monthly payments cover

One loan/bond is paid back rent can be reduced.

the costs of maintenance, management and debt repayment from the initial loan. This structure liberates the users from a mortgage tying the debt to the coop rather than the individual.

01 CLT Coop construction process. SOURCE: multiple (see appendix).

124

Monthly rent pays for maintenance, management and interest to bank.

Save 47 0 00 dk/.sqm - mortgage - developer profit - land reduction - vat

User 39 000 No vat due to coop membership. maintenance Market 30 000 Single bank transaction.

interest management + design

construction

Land proportionally reduces in cost due to leasehold separating land value from speculation.

land

or Extra Space

Mortgage Financial Profit private/state

120%

02 CLT Coop financial process. SOURCE: multiple (see appendix).

125

A Community Land Trust is a nonprofit corporation that develops and stewards affordable housing, community land, civic buildings, commercial spaces and other community assets.

The Right to Dwell

Alternative Models CLT - COOP HOUSING AT RIVER SPREEFIELD CARPANETO ARCHITEKTEN + FATKOEHL ARCHITEKTEN + BARARCHITEKTEN

This project aims to create affordable housing for a wide range of demographics by providing the necessary credit collateral, to allow for the inclusion of people with limited capital. The building design consists of a simple construction system that enables a rich variety of options for the organization of various uses. In this way, no two of the 64 apartment dwellings are alike. Accompanying these dwellings there are communal spaces which include: laundry rooms, a fitness suite, guest accommodation, rooftop terraces, and a music and youth hall.

Dwelling Public

01 Isometric of mixed use floor layout. SOURCE: Archdaily.

126

02 External view of Coop Housing at River Spreefeld. SOURCE: Archdaily. 03 Internal view of spacious apartment. SOURCE: Archdaily.

127

The Right to Dwell

Alternative Models CUSTOMISED (ARCHITECT LED) Architect replaces the

ARCHITECT role of traditional developer

BOND AGGREGATOR

Long term bond at low interest. With guaranteed provided by non profit/government.

LAND

DESIGN MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION

Bond paid back monthly instalments over 50 years at fixed rate.

HOME

INTEREST + VAT

USER

once bond repaid the user owns proportion of the property.

Non user specific design.

+ MAINTENANCE The financing of this model is based on a bond aggregator through a 50-year bond mechanism. The project is then managed and designed by an architecture firm who procures housing on the land. This is similar 01 Customised model construction process. SOURCE: Jack Self.

128

to the coop monthly payments covering the costs of building and paying off debt from the initial bond. Upon the maturity of the bond the occupants will own the building outright.

Save 34 000 dk/sqm - mortgage - developer profit

User 52 000

maintenance Market 40 000

vat Single bank transaction.

interest loan management + design

construction

land

or Extra Space

Mortgage Financial Profit private/state

60%

02 Customised model financial process. SOURCE: multiple (see appendix).

129

The Right to Dwell

Alternative Models CUSTOMISED (ARCHITECT LED) THE INGOT - JACK SELF

This conceptual project works with the financial mechanisms of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning systems to manipulate features such as Section 106. This financial algorithm manipulates the conditions of debt (space, time, money) to provide ultra-durable, highquality and inexpensive housing. Financing is locked into the inert value of the building through its gold facade to detach the building from market fluctuations. Liberal floor plans allow for flexibility of use and create varied dwelling compositions.

130

01 The ingot, montage of building in context. SOURCE: Jack Self.

02 Video still of liberal floor plan. SOURCE: Jack Self.

03 Video still of economic calculations. SOURCE: Jack Self.

04 Internal Montage. SOURCE: Jack Self.

131

The Right to Dwell

Alternative Models NIGHTINGALE

The Australian Nightingale Model, aims to optimise the current speculative model. By reducing construction cost to a minimum and putting a 15% cap on the developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s profit, it drastically reduces the overall lifetime cost. The Nightingale model sets out key development principles which include: affordability, transparency of finances, sustainability, deliberate design, community contribution.

01 The Commons. SOURCE: Nightingale Housing

02 Public roof top - The Commons - Nightingale. SOURCE: Nightingale Housing

132

03 Stripped back apartment - The Commons - Nightingale. SOURCE: Nightingale Housing

ETHICAL ETHICAL INVESTORS INVESTORS Save Save 28 28500 500 dk/.sqm dk/.sqm

LOAN/BOND LOAN/BOND

- reduced - reduced construction construction costs costs - reduced - reduced developer developer profit profit

Investors Investors have have toto follow follow ethical ethical code code regarding regarding financing financing and and profit. profit.

LAND LAND

User User 5757 500 500 User User included included early early inin the the design design process. process.

USER USER Fitting Fitting the the dwellings dwellings toto

maintenance maintenance

the the individuals. individuals.

DESIGN DESIGN MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT user user mortgage mortgage

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

Guided Guided byby perusing perusing ecologically, ecologically, socially socially and and financially financially sustainable sustainable design design philosophy. philosophy.

HOME HOME

INTEREST INTEREST++PROFIT PROFIT++VAT VAT MORTGAGE MORTGAGE

Market Market 3232 000 000 vat vat 1515 %% cap cap onon profit profit developer developer profit. profit. developer developer

Reduction Reduction ofof construction construction costs costs byby streamlining streamlining design. design.

interest interest loan loan management management ++ design design

construction construction

++ MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE land land

oror Extra ExtraSpace Space Mortgage Mortgage Financial Financial Profit Profit private/state private/state

50% 50%

04 Nightingale financial and construction process. SOURCE: Nightingale

133

The Right to Dwell

Alternative Models CLT - SELF PROVIDE

Land is provided by the CLT agreement and leased (sometimes gifted) to the user, usually by the municipality. Individuals then procure their own housing on the land, funding all the construction and management of the design. Here the users may take out a mortgage. Frei Otto’s Ökohaus in Berlin is an experiment with this model with the aim of bringing affordable housing to local residents while consolidating existing social structures.

01 Model of Ökohaus shell structure. SOURCE: architectuul.

134

02 External view of self build Ökohaus. SOURCE: architectuul

CLT CLT

LOAN/BOND LOAN/BOND

Save Save 35 35500 500 dk/.sqm dk/.sqm

LAND LAND

- -developer developer profit profit - -land land reduction reduction - vat - vat

Community CommunityLand LandTrust Trust purchases purchasesland landand and leases leasesit ittotothe theuser. user. Separating Separatingthe theland land from fromspeculation. speculation.

INTEREST INTEREST

User User 5050500 500

USER USER

maintenance maintenance

MORTGAGE MORTGAGE

Individual Individualuser usertakes takes out outmortgage mortgagetotobuild build home homeononleased leasedland. land.

user user mortgage mortgage Market Market 3030000 000

DESIGN DESIGN

interest No Novat vatdue duetotocoop coop interest membership. membership. management management + +design design

MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

HOME HOME

Complicated Complicatedownership ownership asasland landnot notowned ownedbut but leased. leased.

construction construction

Land Landproportionally proportionally reduces reducesinincost costdue duetoto leasehold leaseholdseparating separating land landvalue valuefrom from speculation. speculation.

++ MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE

land land

oror Extra ExtraSpace Space

Mortgage Mortgage Financial FinancialProfit Profit private/state private/state

70% 70%

03 CLT Self Procure financial and construction process. SOURCE: Multiple (see appendix).

135

The Right to Dwell

What needs to be implemented for change?

136

Gather and Inform. Offer alternative loans. A new plot structure. Plot reservation. Self-Provided housing.

137

The Right to Dwell

138

Gather and Inform. Offer alternative loans. A new plot structure. Plot reservation. Self-Provided housing.

Citizens need to be brought together and informed. Making alternatives visible is an important step towards creating a transformed demand.

139

The Right to Dwell

140

Gather and Inform. Offer alternative loans. A new plot structure. Plot reservation. Self-Provided housing.

Alternative types of loans have to be made available. As financial institutions see too much risk in providing smaller groups with loans, municipalities or other forms of ethical financing can provide a guarantee for these loans.

141

The Right to Dwell

142

Gather and Inform. Offer alternative loans. New plot structures. Plot reservation. Self-Provided housing.

To break the market domination by developers, it must be made easier for non professional actors to acquire land. Either through smaller plot sizes or new zoning codes.

143

The Right to Dwell

144

Gather and Inform. Offer alternative loans. A new plot structure. Plot reservation. Self-Provided housing.

Reservation-time for plots has to be altered. The formation of cooperatives or similar groups usually takes quite a long time. Thereby acquiring land on the market becomes extremely difficult for similar groups, as developers can act much quicker and sweep land out from under their feet.

145

The Right to Dwell

146

Gather and Inform. Offer alternative loans. A new plot structure. Plot reservation. Self-Provided housing.

The planning process has to accommodate for self-provided housing. It should engage non-professionals, not just large developers. Self-provision involves the end user in different levels, is more socially focused and potentially supports better housing quality.

147

The Right to Dwell

Chapter 4

Student Projects

Proposals SPATIAL EXPLORATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES

The following projects explore the spatial and societal potential of alternative development models at the scale of a building. Each proposes an organisational structure with particular implications on architectural qualities, affordability and the way residents use the building, thereby expanding our current understanding of the dwelling.

150

01 Mapping Barriers and Actors Marcus Vesterager 02 Prototype for Flexible Living Fran Ă lvarez 03 The Accessible City Alessia Cacopardo 04 Home for a Lifetime Henry Gibbon 05 Living within Layers Brittany Irvine 06 Home Port Paul Konrad 07 MAXIMISED Minimum Jordan McCrae

151

Mapping Barriers and Actors UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENT BARRIERS AND ACTORS IN ORDER TO MAKE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING

During the initial group research for this project there were a number of findings regarding different barriers and actors affecting the affordable housing shortage in Copenhagen. This project continued that research to better understand those barriers and actors, eventually resulting in a map (next page) and a log book (samples on the right page). The log book tracks and documents the research from day one. It consisted of more than 60 pages of interviews, phone calls, e-mails and contact information. The map describes different layers and hierarchies. It incorporates three different domains: one for public actors, one for market-oriented actors and one for governmental/political actors. In the centre of the map are seven different barriers, 1) Loan/Credit rating, 2) Plot prices, 3) Development process, 4) Plot sizes, 5) Housing sizes, 6) Housing prices, and 7) Supply/Demand. They and the surrounding actors are linked directly and indirectly through influence and lobbying/impact. Some of the barriers have a greater effect on affordable housing crisis than others, but they are all important to understand and focus on if the situation is to be addressed. The issue of the affordable housing crisis is of course more complex than the map and log book is able to show, and therefore they must be seen as a simplified version of the current situation. Nevertheless, they give clear indications on how to change and approach the different barriers and actors in order to make more affordable housing.

152

01 Pages from the log book made during the research.

153

Marcus Vesterager

2016

051 nr 9 VEJ

rit

Equi

al Plan 2015

Au t

3) Development process

Munic ip §

Local plan

Admin

nology Admin. for Tech and Environment

. for Fi nanc

ial Affa irs

-K om

nern

lS er v

Lan d

% Interest

icipality Copenhagen Mun

0/01/ af 2

1) Loan/Cre

sfo

ren

ing

is t an er o d fI Fi nd na u nc str ia y, lA B ffa usi irs ne ss

rli

am en t

tio Na

e Th

4) Plot sizes

5) Housing sizes

6) H

City ncil

cou

1 Th e

LEGEND

Branding

Direct inﬂuence on the barrier

H ou

Indirect inﬂuence on the barrier Inﬂuence on the actor

Th e

Wonderful Te n

an ts

Or ga

Copenhage

nis

at io

Lobbying/Impact Approach

01 Map of the actors and barriers in the Copenhagen housing market.

154

(liveability inde x)

LO V

1a f0

6/ 06

Sha

reh o

lde

00 7

Ru l

of B

The ﬁn ancia

l sector

Ha vn

ain

edit rating

Income

The Building Society

ers hold

) oper evel te d (priva

2) Plot prices

rty Fe dera tion

ity

Dan

ish P rope

Housing prices

7) Supply/Demand

hearin

M ed ia

Public

n ize

Cit

re efe n/R

tio

c Ele

155

Marcus Vesterager

One of the barriers identified within the research is plot prices. The plot prices are directly influenced by By og Havn, the main land owner in Copenhagen, which is owned by the Municipality of Copenhagen (95%) and the Danish state (5%). Even though the company is mostly owned by the municipality, the municipality cannot change the way By og Havn is set to do business. By og Havn was created when Parliament passed the law LOV nr 551 af 06/06/2007 which legally sets the rules of the company and that is to do business on market terms and create the most profit in order to fund the metro in Copenhagen. This means that By og Havn has an interest in raising plot prices to create even higher earnings. The price of land in Copenhagen is therefore one of the major barriers to overcome in order to get more affordable housing. Since By og Havn is obliged to do business on market terms it cannot lower prices to insure a more affordable city, e.g. to sell a plot cheaper to public housing company, which would be possible if the plot was owned by the municipality itself. And, since most of the land in Copenhagen is owned by By og Havn, this results in a situation where the municipality in fact cannot control the development of the city in the way that it wants to. In order to change this, it is necessary to apply pressure on Parliament, so the politicians get involved because they basically are the only ones with the power to change the law of By og Havn - not the Municipality of Copenhagen.

156

LO V

Sha

en t rli am

Ru le

51 nr 90 VEJ

of B

The ﬁn ancial

2016

is t an er o d f In Fin d an us cia try lA ,B ffa usin irs e s

00 7

/01/ af 20

sector

Ha vn

ain

Au th or ity

1) Loan/Credit rating

Lan dsf oren ing

er vic

% Interest

Fin an cia

mu ner nes

ers

Equity

Income

ial Affair s

The Building Society

5) Housing sizes

ratio n

ipal Pla n 2015 Munic

Local plan

4) Plot sizes

logy Admin. for Techno and Environment

per)

Admin.

lo deve

for Fin anc

6) Housing prices

Dani

City

sh Pr oper ty Fe de

ate (priv

2) Plot prices

3) Development process

ders ehol Shar

-K om

old

ipality Copenhagen Munic

1a f0

reh

at eN

6/ 06

a ion

cou ncil

7) Supply/Demand

1 Branding

ing c hear

Publi

cia

M ed ia

Th e

n ize

lH ou

Cit sin

Th e

Wonderful Te n

an ts

Org a

Copenhagen um

nis

ati o

fere /Re

cti

Ele

(liveability index )

01 Barrier #2 within the map of the actors and barriers in the Copenhagen housing market.

157

Marcus Vesterager

Another of the barriers identified in the research was housing sizes. The housing sizes are directly influenced by the local plans made by the Administration of Technology and Environment (Teknik- og MiljĂ¸forvaltningen), which is a department under the Municipality of Copenhagen. As it is today, the municipality demands that the average size of new housing is 95 m2. This rule was created because the municipality almost went bankrupt in the early 90â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. People moved out of the city, especially when they had children, because they wanted more space, and therefore the main target was to attract and keep families in the city by building bigger housing so to generate more tax revenue. This has become an immense success, but is now starting to turn into a problem when it comes to affordability. The local plans and the rule can be changed by the Administration of Technology and Environment and the city council where the politicians have to pass each local plan. It is also possible to participate as a ordinary citizen, since all local plans go through public hearings, but at that point most things are already settle, and in the case of the 95 m2 rule, changes have to come from somewhere else. There are ongoing talks about changing, the rule and it seems that all parties want changes to be made, but until then, housing size will remain one of the major barriers to overcome in order to ensure more affordable housing.

158

LO V

Sha

en t rli am

ers

00 7

Ru le

51 nr 90 VEJ

of B

The ﬁn ancial

2016

in is t an er o d f In Fin d an us cia try lA ,B ffa usin irs e ss

/01/ af 20

sector

Ha vn

ain

rit

KR 1) Loan/Credit rating

Au t

g dsf oren in

old

vic

Lan

Interest

Equity

Income

l Affair s

The Building Society ratio n

ipal Pla n 2015 Munic §

Local plan

5) Housing sizes

6) Housing prices

Dani

City

sh Pr oper ty Fe de

for Fin ancia

4) Plot sizes

logy Admin. for Techno and Environment

per)

Admin.

lo deve

ders

ate (priv

2) Plot prices

3) Development process

ehol Shar

-K om

Fin

cia

ner nes

1a f0

reh

ipality Copenhagen Munic

6/ 06

atio eN

cou ncil

7) Supply/Demand

ing c hear

Publi

cia

M ed

Th e

Branding

n ize

lH ou

Cit sin

Th e

Wonderful Te n

an ts

Org a

Copenhagen um

nis

ati o

fere /Re

cti

Ele

(liveability index )

01 Barrier #5 within the map of the actors and barriers in the Copenhagen housing market.

159

Marcus Vesterager

Prototype for Flexible Living HOW CAN SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM FLEXIBILITY BE CATALYSTS FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY?

Rapid and dynamic lifestyle shifts and perpetually changing household structures give rise to an equally shifting architecture. Could it be possible to respond to such trends with new forms of shared living, variable forms of accommodations and user malleable metabolisms? A lack of flexibility in housing typologies leads to unaffordable solutions following life situation changes. What if we were able to expand and contract our homes, according to the amount of time we spend there, and the amount of space our families need? Are you paying for the m2 you actually use? This project deals with the underoccupancy and over-occupancy of our living spaces, designing a co-housing scheme as a living organism that grows, changes and mutates continuously, depending on small successive decisions by those who inhabit it. The proposal consists of an expandable modular grid where each room (unit) can be detached, colonized or shared. This provides a flexible framework defined by three basic principles: 1. AMBIGUITY of the rooms, no predefined functions allow spaces to adapt to each user and be transformed accordingly,

avoiding the traditional corridor and instead creating a sequence of personalizeable spaces. 2. AUTONOMY, independent access and possibility to move and transform sanitary and kitchen units. All basic units can function individually or be colonized by another dweller. 3. ADAPTATION, possibility to add or remove rooms of one’s house during one’s life-cycle. A house that can grow or shrink according to the use we give it and the number of rooms we need, during certain hours, days, weeks, months or years. The construction system follows a prefabricated logic whereby the 600 mm “wall” is the key module that can become storage or door, kitchen or bathroom, avoiding residual spaces and allowing maximum flexibility.

01 Model, scale 1:200. Two main typologies were explored: the never-ending mat (1 and 2 levels) and the externally-circulated low rise tower. These typologies act as density equalizers, according to its context requirements.

160

02 Basic aggregation system for a tower plan. Case study: student housing for eight.

03 Basic aggregation system for a tower plan. Case study: open plan apartment for one.

161

Fran Ă lvarez

01 View from the towerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s external circulation, which allows for greater flexibility, as any room can be detached and accessed autonomously. The slanted orientation of the units provides luminous front terraces for each room, where neighbours of the co-housing can interact.

162

163

Fran Ă lvarez

01 Basic Tower Unit: non-specific space with an individual access, semi-private terrace, kitchen cabinets and bathroom. This scheme allows units to be used independently, shared between several neighbours, or be colonized by one of them.

02 Basic aggregation system for the towerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s layout. Storage modules can be replaced with doors, and kitchens and bathrooms are weaved in a central wet core. They can open up or close off as needed, and sanitary units can be added or removed.

164

165

Fran Ă lvarez

01 Tower plan layout. Case study I: student housing.

Elderly couple (2)

Young couple (2)

Solo (1)

Collective (4)

Friends (3)

Solo (1)

02 Tower plan layout. Case study II: mixed users.

Elderly couple and care taker (3)

Family (3)

Collective (3)

Friends (3)

Couple (2)

03 Tower plan layout. Case study III: mixed users in 5 years.

Solo (1)

Family (4)

Solo (1)

04 Tower plan layout. Case study IV: mixed users in 10 years.

166

Couple (2)

Bachelor (2)

Shared Space

Couple (2)

05 Mat typology, plan layout. Case study: student housing.

167

Fran Ă lvarez

01 Isometric of a 2 storey unit (mat typology).

02 Pre-fabricated components of the 600mm wall: window/desk/bay window/door/shelves/storage/kitchen and wet units/ wall/etc.

168

03 Mat typology model, scale 1:50.

04 Mat typology model, scale 1:50, top view.

169

Fran Ă lvarez

01 Mat aggregation system for 12 dwellings.

02 Mat aggregation system for 6 dwellings.

07 Mat aggregation system in six years (6 dwellings).

170

03 Mat aggregation system for 4 dwellings.

08 Mat aggregation system in eight years (6 dwellings), one of the dwellers added a second floor.

04 Mat aggregation system for 3 dwellings.

05 Mat aggregation system in two years (5 dwellings).

09 Mat aggregation system in twenty ten years (6 dwellings).

171

06 Mat aggregation system in four years (6 dwellings).

10 Mat aggregation system in twelve years (6 dwellings), a couple divorced and split their home.

Fran Ă lvarez

01 Masterplan, scale 1:200. The mat typology allows low density coverage of large scale plots. A seemingly rigid grid introduces courtyards and patios, bringing light into all units and creating different levels of privacy within the public spaces. The tower typology allows to equalize density requirements, and provides semi private terraces.

172

173

Fran Ă lvarez

The Accessible city ALTERNATIVE LAND-SOURCING

The project seeks to find an alternative to the developer-dominated model of land acquisition through large scale plots. The absence of small and medium sized plots in Copenhagen represents one of the major obstacles to the establishment of a direct relationship between home owner and land, leading to a situation of inaccessibility and unaffordability in the city’s housing market. The access to land is here considered as the primary driver for the re-appropriation of the Right to Dwell. The price of the land is generally determined by three factors: 1. Land Sales Tax - influenced by elements like physical attributes, accessibility and local amenities. 2. Land Purchase - registration tax 3. Usage - real estate tax (present and future land use.) The case of Nordhavn. The site is positioned in a central location and its highly regulated zoning promises to provide residents with all kinds of amenities, from infrastructural services, to transport, schools, water access and views. Thanks to the zoning and local plan for Nordhavn, the area will not only be a residential haven, but also a productive hub of the city In Nordhavn, land purchase happens through large plots with sizes varying from 10,000 to 20,000 sqm. These factors make the land of Nordhavn ‘golden’ and impossible to acquire for anyone but large developers. The value of

174

the real estate built on the land similarly excludes small and middle range home buyers - making the area a “ghetto for the rich”. C o n s i d e r i n g N o rd h av n a m i s s e d opportunity for small scale and medium home buyers, the focus of this project shifts to the search for a place in the city that could represent a valid alternative. Prøvestenen is located 3km south of Nordhavn, with similar location and orientation, and even an industrial origin, which reflects that of its expensive northern twin. Founded in 1713 as a military defence fort, it was subsequently purchased from Søværnet in 1922 and was transformed to store oil and gasoline, and, in recent years, bulk deposits. After the oil crisis in the 1970s and the diminishing oil extraction in the North Sea, there is no longer a need for many of the large tank plants. Today there are 43 active tanks out of 100 tanks present. 30.000 sqm of land and the empty tanks are advertised on sale by the Copenhagen and Malmø port authority. But what are the municipality’s plans for the area? A local plan designated the area to be transformed into a marina in 2007 but due to the lack of funds this was dismissed. So now there are no projects envisioned for the area.

Project site: PrĂ¸vestenen, Copenhagen.

175

Alessia Cacopardo

At masterplan level the strategy consists of considering the disused oil tanks as plots, making the plot an element of reduced size, manageable by a reduced amount of people, independent from the control of any developer. A group of people (i.e. a coop), could acquire the plot, with shared capital , that will go towards the construction of their own houses. This is similar to the current model of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;andelsboligerâ&#x20AC;?, seen in Copenhagen. How is this land affordable? Firstly, the plot size is considerably reduced in scale which makes the purchase accessible to groups of users like a coop who are looking to acquire a plot of land to live on and not to profit from, unlike the profit driven developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach. The site, being well connected to the city by two streets but not in the vicinity of the metro or pre-existing amenities, benefits from a lower Land Sales Tax. Furthermore, the real estate tax is determined by the revenue that the estate would produce. An industrial activity on site makes the usage tax higher. However, when the function shifts from a highly productive to a not-for-profit one, the tax drops, contributing to the affordability of the site.

176

The plots - or tanks - come in different sizes and are arranged in two different ways - isolated and clustered. The isolated silos can be colonized in the interior or in the exterior, leaving the cluster typology to be a mix of the two, depending on the diameter of the tanks that compose it.

View of the internal circulation galleries.

177

Alessia Cacopardo

The building is created on the logic of using the least possible materials, dwelling on the oil tank and exploiting the existing constructions by adding structural elements with architectural functions. The tension rings that, together with the cables reinforce and counteract the weight of the dwelling units, function as circulation galleries, while opening the rounded doors in the existing cylinder, increases the rigidity of the tank. The inner surface of the tank is covered with insulation foam and constitute one of the two faรงades of the apartments. Cables run thought the exterior and interior facade, and form a structure that supports the floor slabs allowing for a flexible plan The block is entered in stages - firstly the containment basin shelter and semiprivate space, secondly, the tank is entered to access the circulation core, revealing the garden space. In plan the space is organized in layers determined by the size and the distance to the original tank. The inner layer is a dark ring that contains wet services, utilities and storage spaces. The second layer is composed of two kinds of room, a darker and more enclosed one and a wider and brighter one. This distinction determines the disposition of day/night or public and private zones depending on the preferences of the inhabitant. The outer ring is open and allows circulation through the circumference of the building. The

178

circulation happens horizontally, allowing a trajectory of gradual discovery through different levels of brightness and of volume. The outer facade hosts full height windows that, if opened, create loggias and balconies. To each floor is given a certain freedom of plan, allowing for different kind/size of living.

View of the gallery an living space.

02 Layout of an apartment.

179

Alessia Cacopardo

01 Typical floor plan.

180

eeeeeeee

02 Section showing the existing silo with added overhanging structure and garden.

181

Alessia Cacopardo

01 External Model Photo, 1 to 50.

182

02 Internal Model Photo. 1 to 50.

183

Alessia Cacopardo

Home for a Lifetime SWAPPING TO ENABLE AFFORDABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY

To enhance diversity within the city this project aims to cater for a wide variety of family compositions allowing them to dwell together, whilst also including 25% Public Housing (therefore having to cost <24 000 dkk/sqm). To achieve this a ‘puzzle’ catalogue of apartments was developed, as ‘the ideal home no longer exists: there are thousands of ideal homes’ MVRDV. H owev e r, a s g at h e re d f ro m o u r research, family compositions change, and to maintain long term communities, a swapping system is proposed through the CLT coop housing procurement model. This is facilitated through service lifts and

01 Internalised circulation staggered on alternate floors.

184

generous walkways/ramps, that allow for residence to easily move belongings around the building, while also providing a new common area for public life. The CLT coop model is further optimised through the ‘naked house’ typology saving 60% on construction, a climatic double creates a buffer saves on heating costs by 30% over a 30 year time period. These combined factors create a affordable dwelling block that separates itself from the speculative model, allowing for more accessible residential market.

02 1-100 physical model: ‘puzzle’ typology of apartments allows for varied family composition.

03 Precedent: Unite d’habitation - Le Corbusier, re-imagining the dwelling typology to work in 3 rather than 2 dimensions.

185

Henry Gibbon

Apartment Catalogue: B // bedroom BB // double bedroom D // kitchen/dining L // lounge

D L B B // 50 sqm

B B D L // 50 sqm

B B D L B B // 75 sqm

186

DD LL BB BB BB BB // 75 sqm

BB BB BB BB DD LL LL // 100 sqm

BB BB BB BB DD LL LL BB // 125 sqm

BB BB BB DD LL LL BB BB BB BB BB // 200 sqm

1 1 bed bed 187

22 bed bed

33 bed bed

44 bed bed

66 bed bed Henry Gibbon

01 Stills from stop-motion: ‘puzzle’ building up.

188

189

Henry Gibbon

80 000

70 000

speculative developer model

60 000

50 000

User 39 000

40 000

maintenance Market 30 000

30 000

interest management + design

20 000

construction

10 000

land 0 dkk/sqm

190

CLT Coop

CLT Board Cooperative Shareholders

Share = 1 m3

01 Facilitating swapping: cooperative swapping model over 1-100 physical model.

191

Henry Gibbon

01 Hand drawn short section: block organisation. 02 Hand drawn plan with circulation / communal spaces in green, (opposite).

192

193

Henry Gibbon

01 Hand drawn short section: explaining the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;puzzleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; typology and circulation routes (zoom).

194

195

Henry Gibbon

01 ‘Puzzle’ housing typologies: xxs//xs//s//m//l//xl//xxl.

196

197

Henry Gibbon

Fittings

User 34 000 Market 30 000

30 000

Finishes

maintenance interest management + design

Elevators

Insulation

User 25 000

facade

Market 21 500

20 000

services construction structure 10 000

60%

Basic fittings

65%

maintenance interest management + design

+ service lift

construction

site costs

0 dkk/sqm

198

land

CLT Coop

Reduced CLT Coop

To enable swapping each dwelling has to allow for re-attribution of the space, this is achieved through the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;naked house typology, giving each resident a clean slate on which they can apply their own characteristics. Basic fittings (electrical,

199

plumbing and heating) are provided within a simple concrete shell. Further furnishings, such as stairs, storage and walls are made from plywood. On leaving the property each resident must returns the dwelling to its previous â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;nakedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; condition.

Henry Gibbon

Living within Layers TEMPERATE ATMOSPHERES : SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH PASSIVE TEMPERATURE CONTROL

Living within ayers.

Living within layers is a project that attempts to create an environment of human comfort in relationship to function. Harnessing the qualities of temperature, light and air, this proposal begins to question how might we begin to imagine climatic phenomena such as convection, and conduction as new tools of architectural composition. By creating affordability through climate and construction logic, questioning how we can begin to live differently when we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think of architecture as just a set of rooms, but a series of tailored climatic zones. This results in a synergy of these climatic zones.

1. 2. 3.

Utilise existing conditions.

Create a comfortable temperate environment.

Inhabit with relationship to function.

0119Three key rules for developing the concept.

02 Specific function and its relationship to temperature.

200 20

Total Cost 62 144 dkk/m2 Total Cost 62 144 dkk/m2

AINTENANCE MAINTENANCE

USER MORTGAGE

CLT Co-Operative

USER MORTGAGE

Market Value 38 119 dkk/m2

VAT

Market Value 38 119 dkk/m2

25%

VAT

25%

Total Cost 30 129 dkk/m2

PROFIT EVELOPER

Aiming to reduce maintence in terms of cost of heating and ventilation.

Total Cost 30 129 dkk/m2

Total Cost 25%

M A I N T E N A NPCREO F I T

DEVELOPER

INTEREST LOAN/BOND

ANAGEMENT + DESIGN

14%

INTEREST INTEREST LOAN/BOND LOAN/BOND

25%

Market Value 23 176 dkk/m2 7% 7%

MANAGEMENT + MANAGEMENT + 14% DESIGN DESIGN

14%

MAINTENANCE

MAINTENANCE Market Value

INTEREST LOAN/BOND MANAGEMENT + DESIGN

INTEREST LOAN/BOND

Market Value 23 176 dkk/m2 7%

MANAGEMENT + DESIGN

14%

CONSTRUCTION

ONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

LAND LAND

LAND

Reduced Land Value Due to CLT Ownership

CURREN T PROPOSED COMPONENTS

U R R E NT

I OTNS S A R C H I T E CB TA NI NK FILNUFELNU CE EN CEEL EOMP ET N

BANK INFLUENCE OPTIONS

LAND

Reduced Land Value Due to CLT Ownership

P RO P O SE D CO M P O NE NTS

Simple system, but site understanding is required. Not more than a typical project should do anyway.

Less than current development model. = affordable for more people This is predominantly due the implementation of the Co-operative model which removes developer profit + user mortgage + VAT. .

How does this concept targe economic diagram?

Construction price decreased - due to reduced wall material through layers and air gap.

Land increased x2 in price due to city proximity + exisiting infrastructure.

PR OPOSED PR OPOR TI ONS

PR OPOSED PR OPOR TI ON S

ARCHITEC T INFLUENCE ELEMENTS

The build up of the current situation, the speculative developer, juxtaposed with the selected alternative CLT cooperative, is shown in figure three. The research alone suggests a reduction in cost by 50% if this model was to be implemented. However, when we begin to add in the ideas of creating affordability through climate, and passive solutions areas of the diagram begin to morph. The targeted areas are maintenance and

construction costs. The construction will be reduced with the use of a standardised concrete construction shell, and with a greatly reduced wall package that results in a build up of thinner layers. These thinner layers will result in pockets of varying thermal climates. The reduction in maintenance costs will be felt through the inclusion of passive designing for a reduction in heating, lighting and ventilation costs.

03 Proposed proportions of this scheme, (above).

201

Brittany Irvine

Apartment

Hot

“ The SIA standard recommends to heat the toilets at 15 ° C, the bedroom at 16 ° C, the kitchen at 18 ° C, the stay at 20 ° C, the bathroom at 22 ° C. According to these objectives and in relation to the principles of Archimedes of hot air descent, we propose to distribute the program of one belonging in the whole atmosphere of a single room looking for the different temperatures Suitable for different functions, The different activities of the inhabitant and his clothing.”

Bathroom

Garden Tropical Toilet

Living Terrace Store: Linen

Garden Vegetable

Dining

Studio

Bedroom Kitchen

Philippe Rahm

Entry

Toilet = 15 Corridor = 16 Bedroom = 16 Kitchen = 18 Living = 20 Bathroom = 22

Warm-season vegetables and most flowers grow best between 15.5° and 24° or 27° C. Cool-season vegetables such as lettuce and spinach should be grown between 10° and 21° C.

Dispersed

Through using our understanding and analysis of site, an optimized configuration of climatic zones will be designed. Predefining climatic areas, with prefixed conditions of light and temperature. The importance of light, air and nature are explored through the deployment of these optimized climatic spaces. Overall the result of this is that people with deploy their own program of functions within a space in relation to the existing atmospheres.

Contrasts need to exist and ranges need to occur, in relation to the energy exerted for a variety of functions and occupants. Applying Rahms ideas of rethinking architecture, and using a functional approach that is “more sensitive, more attentive to the invisible, climate related aspects of space”. By designing a space using the phenomena of convection and conduction, we can begin to build a passive house that is able to open up new ideas and perceptions of housing. Healthier housing is produced through the optimisation of air, light and temperature. This also corresponds to optimal all year planting conditions for biophilic effects.

01 Temperature and light relationship for various functions (above).

202

Bright

Light Level

As Philippe Rahm proposes, how might we begin to imagine climatic phenomena such as convection and conduction as new tools of architectural composition? What we seek is to work on a new organization of space where the function but also the form may arise spontaneously from the architecture as a climate.

Store: Food

Cool

GARDEN

Temperature

Store: Hardware

APARTMENT

N 10 8

6 4 2 W

INED

COM BINED

LIGHT

HOT LIGHT COOL LIGHT

g / Diffuse building.

HOT LIGHT

WHIND OT L IG H T

Direct sunlight, or non shaded areas.

Predominant Direct sunlight, wind or non directions. shaded areas.

Direct sunlight, Daylighting or non / Diffuse shaded lighting areas.in building.

WIND Wind

DIRECT

Direct Site shading

Understanding wind direction and intensity is important for

W IND Predominant wind directions.

DAYLIGHTING

Daylighting

Daylight autonomy

designing open and sheltered spaces. 44

02 Wind, direct and daylighting measurements.

COMBINE D

COOL L IGHT

HOT LIGHT

Cool Light Daylighting / Diffuse lighting in building.

WI ND

Hot Light Direct sunlight, or non

CO MBIN E D

Wind

Predominant wind directions.

shaded areas.

CO O L LIGH T

HOT LIGHT

Daylighting / Diffuse

Direction sunlight, or

Daylighting / Diffuse lighting in building.

Direct sunlight, or non shaded areas.

lighting

WIN D

Ideal function

Predominant wind directions.

locations

Dominant wind

non shaded areas

Combined

directions

ST U D I O / O F F I C E

S COR VI LE E N E S P G U N S S H IN PA E T CE ER

PR IVATE

S H ELT ER ED T ER R AC E

low

high 48

high

low

high

low

high

low

WIND

low

low WIND

high

low

high

exposed

sheltered

203

sheltere WI

the building.

49low

WI ND

03 Determining spatial and temporal locations. 48

Issues with depth of slab.

low Resulting sheltered exposed W IND in a cut along a rear of

high exposed

exposed

sheltered

Brittany Irvine

6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 0. 01 Exploded view of full building.

204

R O O F T E R R ACE

(R ES IDEN TS ON LY )

RO O F TE RRACE

(R ES IDEN TS

S h a r e d g r e e nhous e, t emperat e env ironment S hared greenhous e, t em O u td o o r d i n i ng s pac e Out door dining s pac e Ve g e ta b l e p l ant ers Veget able plant ers Wa sh i n g a n d dry ing f ac ilit ies Was hing and dry ing f ac

R E S I D E N T I A L F LO O R

RE SIDE NTIAL F LO O R

E xte n d e d co re t errac e. Fo u r a p a r tm e nt s 2 , 3 , 3 , 4 b e drooms .

E x t ended c ore t errac e. Four apart ment s 2, 3, 3, 4 bedrooms .

R E S I D E N T I A L F LO O R

RE SIDE NTIAL F LO O R

Fo u r a p a r tm e nt s 2 , 3 , 3 , 4 b e drooms .

Four apart ment s 2, 3, 3, 4 bedrooms .

R E S I D E N T I A L F LO O R

RE SIDE NTIAL F LO O R

E xte n d e d co re t errac e. Fo u r a p a r tm e nt s 2 , 3 , 3 , 4 b e drooms .

E x t ended c ore t errac e. Four apart ment s 2, 3, 3, 4 bedrooms .

R E S I D E N T I A L F LO O R

RE SIDE NTIAL F LO O R

Fo u r a p a r tm e nt s 2 , 3 , 3 , 4 b e drooms .

Four apart ment s 2, 3, 3, 4 bedrooms .

R E S I D E N T I A L F LO O R

RE SIDE NTIAL F LO O R

E xte n d e d co re t errac e. Fo u r a p a r tm e nt s 2 , 3 , 3 , 4 b e drooms .

E x t ended c ore t errac e. Four apart ment s 2, 3, 3, 4 bedrooms .

P U B LI C / S H A R E D G RO UND F LO O R

P UBL IC / SHARE D G RO UN

C a fe sp a ce / meet ing s pac e S e cu r e b i ke s t orage To i l e ts + ki tc hen

C af e s pac e / meet ing s p S ec ure bik e s t orage Toilet s + k it c hen

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Boundary. WRA P.

Boundary, wrap.

Determine location of war

bathroom. WRAP. Determine location of warmest space; bathroom. Wrap.

Bedrooms; enclose enviro 1. E nclosure of individual environment. 1. Enacoustic and privacy purp

Bedrooms: enclose close individual zones for acoustic and privacy purposes. Wrap.

zone. S econd warm Living zone. Second warmest.Living Enclose with space, including bath with space including bathroom.

Kitchen zone. Middle grou

Kitchen zone. Middle ground. close Enclose space encompassin bathroom. space encompassing living and bathroom.

02 Process of designing spaces.

114

115

114

03 This physical model explores the variety of temperatures throughout the building.

205

Brittany Irvine

Building Section 1:100

01 Overall building perspective section - connection of all units working together to heat greenhouse.

02 Section showing each apartment feeding into the central circulation risers, thus heat rising to fill greenhouse.

03 Annotated diagram of transfers and heat additions in working building. 11000 | LEVEL 3

11000 | LEVEL 3

7500 | LEVEL 2

206 B U I L D IN G BWO UI LRDKI N I NGG WO IN S R ECT K I N GI OIN. N S E CT I ON . CO N N E CT C IOONN O NE F CT A LIO L NU NI OFTSA LWO L URNI K ITS N G WO TOG R KET I NHGE RTOG ET H E R

04 Level Three Plan.

NIGHT DAY

Building Plan Generic Residential Floor 1:100

11000 | LEVEL 3

7500 | LEVEL 2

4000 | LEVEL 1

1 : 50

LAYE R

L AY E R

DAY

WINTER

NIGHT

-5

BUILING PLAN T H E R M A L ZO N E S

BUILING PLAN LIG HTING CHANGES

SUMMER 25 T E M P E R AT U R E I N

applying the layer ing logic fr om Museum K anto r

05 Temperature Changes.

06 Natural Lighting Changes.

207 90

93 91

Brittany Irvine

Apartment Section

ApartmentGeneric Section Residential Floor Generic Residential Floor 1:50 1:50

11000mm Level 3

11000 | LEVEL 3

7500mm Level 2

7500 | LEVEL 2

4000mm Level 1

4000 | LEVEL 1

14000mm span

01 Building perspective section. 78

NIGHT

11000 | LEVEL 3

7500 | LEVEL 2

4000 | LEVEL 1

1 : 50

02 Temperature Changes.

208

NIGHT

03 Natural Lighting Changes.

DAY

1 : 50 Apartment Plan

04 Unit Plan.

05 Varying thermal zones.

1 : 50 Apartment Plan

Central ventilation core witn shared terrace area. Double height space, encourages socialising between neighbours

102

103

06 Central ventilation core with shared terrace area. Double height spaces encourage socialising between neighbours.

209

Brittany Irvine

Home Port THE REINTRODUCTION OF USE-VALUE

In order to create a long-term sustainable and socially inclusive city we can no longer embrace the current logic of the market, where housing is regarded as a commodity defined by its exchange-value. This project uses an alternative economic model to challenge our current understanding of the 01 Perspective Section.

210

notion of a home. By detaching ownership from a specific location, the dweller reclaims control over his housing career. By visualising the life-cycle of a privately owned apartment we can see how land is constantly being re-sold and re-mortgaged, thereby leading to capital

accumulation and ultimately rising house prices. This proposal puts forward a city strategy, where By&Havn retains possession of its land and leases it to builders to separate land from the real estate market. This would secure a stable income for the city, while keeping the power of a

211

landlord in the hands of the municipality. At the same time the challenge of attaining a plot diminishes and the market is made accessible for nonprofessionals builders, like cooperatives.

Paul Konrad

CPH

LAND

Seperating the land from speculation.

LEASE

NIGHTINGALE

DEVELOPER

COOP

SELF BUILD

SELF PROCURE

DESIGN

MANAGEMENT

CONSTRUCTION

CPH

USER

Private Lease

01 Commune led land-trust. LAND

Kommune leases to builders Seperating the land from speculation.

LEASE

Kommune leases to builders

DEVELOPER

COOP

CPH

LEASEBUILD SELF

SELF PROCURE Kommune leases to builders

LAND

DESIGN

DESIGN USER

MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT User hiers team to

SAVINGS CONSTRUCTION DESIGN CONSTRUCTION

Seperating the land from speculation.

DESIGN

COOP

MANAGEMENT Cooperative takes out loan to build home on leased land.

LOAN CONSTRUCTION DESIGN

MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION

60% of average price

MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION

Complicated ownership as land not owned but leased.

USER

USER INFILL

SHELL

USER

Private Lease

Mortgage Finantial Profit private/state

02 Development model - user-led cooperative.

212

Re-sale User 2

Sale User 1

Developement

Mortgage

Inflation over 30 years

70000

60000 User Cost

50000 Maintenance

Maintenance

Interest Mortgage

40000 Interest Mortgage

Market Value

30000 VAT

VAT

Profit Developer

Interest Loan/Bond Management + Design

Construction

VAT

+Maintenance

+Mortgage Profit Developer

20000 Interest Loan/Bond

Interest Loan/Bond

Interest Loan/Bond Management + Design

Management + Design

+25%

Management + Design

+25%

+7%

10000

Construction

dkk/m2 Land

Land

profit developer takes for developing

interest on loan for developer

market value added tax

Land

accumulative interest on a 30 year mortgage

accumulative cost for maintenance after 30 years

Land

property value increase

investment for developer

03 Life-cycle - privately owned building on leased land. Land does not get resold, thereby reducing inflation Re-sale User 2

Cooperative retains ownership

Developement

70000

60000

50000

40000

Lease

30000 VAT

Interest Loan/Bond

Management + Design

Lease

incl maintenance

VAT

Fees Cooperative

20000

Fees Cooperative

incl maintenance

+Lease

Fees Cooperative

Management + Design

Interest Loan/Bond Management + Design

Construction

Interest Loan/Bond +25%

+Lease

+7%

10000 Construction

Construction

dkk/m2

subsidised land

Land

interest on loan for cooperative

Land

cooperative needs budget

Land

no VAT no sale

lease pays back

Land

maintenance non cumulative

no resale no inflation

lease could slowly decrease as soon as loan is payed off

04 Life-cycle - cooperative on leased land. Property stays in possession of cooperative, thereby stabilises cost.

213

Paul Konrad

building

01 Site plan Nordhavn. Proposed building bridging over a canal in the former industrial harbour.

02 Model - primary structure - colour coded ownership.

03 Plan primary structure.

215

04 Structure - axonometric explosion.

Paul Konrad

Space/ Time

couple

family

family separated

couple

family

single young

single old

young old

family

couple

family

tourist

family

tourist nomad student

nomad

family

nomad

single old

family

student nomad

single young

family separated

couple

family

couple

family

student

couple

nomad

student nomad

couple

nomad

single young

couple

nomad

single young

couple

young old

single young

couple

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Home Portâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; uses the organisational single young old family structure of the user-led cooperative, whereby users lease a share of the cooperative to pay back the initial loan for the development. As the property is communally owned, the building is not considered as a commodity, but first and foremost as a place to live. This prevents the cycle of re-mortgaging and constant accumulation of capital, stabilises rent prices and secures long term affordability. Similar to the Danish andelsboliger, ownership is not bound to a specific object or location, but can be redistributed, swapped and scaled. The project exploits this potential by separating a cooperatively owned generic structure from secondary individual infills. 01 Possible ownership cycles.

216

family

student

single old

Located next to anomad small canal in contemporary Nordhavn, the building is made up of two identical prefabricated concrete structures. While folding fire station doors provide adaptable climatic enclosure, hollow core slabs and columns feed piping through the building. Spanning over the water an industrial crane connects the two volumes and lifts the secondary infills into place. The privately owned pods arrive via waterway, dock into the infrastructure of the building and unfold into units. In contrast to the rigid structure residents are able to arrange their leased share according to their needs.

tourist

inter

fam

02 Possible ownership distributions in a hyper-generic structure.

217

Paul Konrad

01 Sectional model - infill unfolded.

02 Unfolding pod/infill.

218

03 Sectional model .

04 Infill.

219

Paul Konrad

220

01 Floor plan - unfolded infills.

221

Paul Konrad

Årh us

Nordhavn

m Mal

Refshaleøen

Bornholm

Artillerivej

Sydhavn

ock Rost

Gø te

01 Regional network.

Århus

Helsingborg

København

Malmø

Roskilde

Rostock

Odense

02 International network.

222

rnh

olm

223

Paul Konrad

MAXIMISED Minimum HOW CAN WE COMBINE MAXIMISED LIVEABILITY QUALITIES WITH AFFORDABILITY?

This research identified 2 areas for change within the current housing system: 1. Short-term profit focused development: The City, via By + Havn, takes care of the public realm and services by preparing land for the market and developers take care of the housing. This closed circle works on logics of short-term profitability. The established mutual relationships within it, by excluding other people from entering the housing development process, is leading to long term unaffordability. 2. Existence minimum housing: From the individual point of view this development model is producing housing which provides an existence minimum. Where what is unaffordable, are liveability qualities like flexibility and access to nature. The current development model and the housing it produces is failing many in Copenhagen. So how do we evade the system that works with these logics? How do we maximise the current existence minimum? Any approach to ‘solve’ affordability must work at both the collective and individual levels. The solution is not just to build cheaper housing in the short term but about shifting the development logic to involve people in the process.

01 Opposite: Concept collage of MAXIMISED minimum housing.

224

This proposed model is a Liveability Land Trust Coop - based on the Community Land Trust Coop (CLT) presented in the research but altered to overcome the barriers identified. In this process the dwellers replace the developers but the city and By + Havn remain involved in the process. One of biggest barriers to CLT is access to land in the city. By + Havn’s main aim is to work for profit...but there is a loophole: ‘The partnership may in whole or in part make available land free of charge for cultural purposes and leisure and recreational activities.’ - By + Havn, Articles of Association, 2015

To take advantage of this it is proposed that housing could be combined with public functions, in the form of a Botanical Garden. This would allow more affordable access to land and the opportunity for further efficiencies through the sharing of resources.

225

Jordan McCrae

The proposal for an alternative MAXIMISED minimum housing model,

Private housing combined with public Botanic Gardens, has four components: a public service wall; a private service wall;

Botanical Garden space and living units. The living spaces are separated from services and designed in a modular system to provide 2 levels of flexibility to the dwellers [fig. 02]. This model MAXIMISES the potential for dwellers to have access to the previously unaffordable liveability qualities like flexibility, extra space, and access to nature.

01 Diagrammatic axonometric of housing units surrounded by Botanic Gardens.

226

[2]

PUBLIC SERVICE WALL [2]

PRIVATE SERVICE WALL

Access

Toilets

Kitchens

Bathrooms Personal Storage

[3]

HOME

Community Facilities Cycle Storage

Internal Circulation

Garden Servicing

Housing Services

Basement Storage

Saunas

BBQ

Hot tubs

Water Collection

BOTANICAL GARDEN - TEMPERED SPACE [1]

This model also provides a different approach to affordability. The Liveability Land Trust sets up an alternative ownership model, resulting in a sharing of the costs associated with living in the city.

INFRASTRUCTURE: The Coop establishes the basic infrastructure of the building The Coop retains ownership of these elements. [2]

HOME: Finally the individual dwellers lease the infrastructure from the Coop and they take out a mortgage to purchase their individual living spaces. [3]

LAND: Ownership is retained by By + Havn or the city as part of the provision of the Botanical Garden. They lease the land to a Coop made up of dwellers. [1]

02 Diagrammatic section showing housing model components and ownership model.

227

Jordan McCrae

[1]

MAINTENANCE

[2]

The combination of an altered development, housing and ownership model provides an alternative housing taxonomy which offers a number of strategies for increasing 'affordability.' A diagrammatic breakdown of these potential savings is detailed in the diagram opposite.

[3]

Reduced as maintenance is a shared responsibility between municipality and dweller.

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

[1]

[4] USER MORTGAGE

Reduced design time and cost due to use of modular system. [2]

Slightly more than existing system as additional costs from structure and planting but some savings can be made from reduced land preparation, reduced climatisation and pre-fab construction. [3]

Reduced due to mixed ownership - only buy your units.

[5]

[4]

[5]

Removed due to Coop ownership. [6]

[6]

VAT

Removed as dwellers replace developers.

Reduced initial investment as land cost is lower and building is completed in phases, results in reduced loan and hence interest. [7]

[7]

DEVELOPER PROFIT

INTEREST LOAN

Reduced as given at reduced rate as it contains a public function.

[8]

LAND

[8]

01 Taxonomy of current development model and shift to proposed MAXIMISED Minimum model.

228

CURRENT

MAINTENANCE

DESIGN ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

USER MORTGAGE / COOP PAYMENTS INTEREST LOAN LAND PROPOSED

229

Jordan McCrae

PRIVATE WALL

10.

9. 5. 6.

4. 7. 2. 3. 12.

1. 11.

1. Main Circulation 2. Semi-Private Threshold 3. Store 4. Unit Entrance 5. Kitchen Plug-In 6. Living Space 7. W.C. 8. Storage 9. Roof Deck Access 10. Expansion Space 11. Vertical Green Wall 12. Green Screen 01 Living level of single module, 65m2. Drawn 1 to 50, NTS here.

230

PUBLIC WALL

1. 7. 2.

6. 8.

1. Private Access 2. Hot Tub 3. Store 4. Vegetable Garden 5. Palm Garden 6. Eating Area. 7. BBQ 8. Separate Entrance 9. Expansion Space 02 Tempered garden level of single module. Drawn 1:50, NTS here.

231

Jordan McCrae

PUBLIC WALL

01 Section through single module showing connection to walls. Drawn 1:50, NTS here.

232

PRIVATE WALL

02 - 05 Study models of living spaces and connection to garden.

233

Jordan McCrae

Beach

European

Tropical Spa

Forest

Strand Park

01 Plan showing the potential of the modular system to expand and the diversity of landscape experiences on the cross-site cycle route.

234

Community Hall

Desert

Adventure Park

Rainforest Cafe

Palm House Kindergarten Alpines

Forest

Orchard

235

Jordan McCrae

SINGLE

DOUBLE

VIEWING PLATFORM

ROOF GARDEN

01 Example floor plan with landscape plan below, 1:200.

236

DOUBLE

GARDEN CAFE

WIDE DOUBLE LEVEL

RESEARCH LAB

Desert

237

Jordan McCrae

Shade Garden

SHADE GARDEN

01 Example section through units and gardens.

238

Palm Grove

PALM GROVE

Green Room

GREEN ROOM

239

Pond

POND

Tropical Spa

TROPICAL SPA

Jordan McCrae

1. 2.

3. 4.

1. Intensive Green roof 2. 1200mm Hollow Core Concrete 3. Self-Finish Wooden floor 4. Suspended Deck 01 Section through housing unit components.

240

02 Block Model. 1:200.

241

Jordan McCrae

242

Chapter 5

Video

243

The RTD Video

As a part of the project we made a short video summarising our research and findings on the affordable housing crisis. The video shows the most fundamental analysis and proposes alternatives to the current development scheme. It is easy to understand and is meant to spread on social media in order to start a public debate on the housing crisis. The video is available from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=23g8FC8oNQA

244

00:00

Copenhagen has been repeatedly named the world’s most liveable city”.

00:42

Liveability markers like healthcare provision, foreign business, educational attainment and number of cyclists;

01:05

A focus on public space, with numerous number of cafés, cultural and sport facilities.

01:20

But what about the hidden elements of the city which until now have not been measured by the indexes?

245

The Right to Dwell