Sleepingtories - A Workshop on Architecture, Collaboration, Sleeping and Democracy by Bence Komlósi

Sleepingtories A Workshop on Architecture, Collaboration, Sleeping, and Democracy

HELLO WOOD - PROJECT VILLAGE 2015 - CSÃ&#x201C;ROMPUSZTA, HUNGARY

The workshop Sleepingtories took place from July 11th through July 19th, 2015. It was one of the fifteen workshops conducted within an educational program –Project Village– organized by Hello Wood in Csórompuszta, Hungary. In six days, eight architecture students and two architects from various nationalities and backgrounds discussed, co-designed, and co-built five artifacts and one prototype – Sleepingtories, or places to sleep in public.

CONTEXT

Hello Wood is an international art program based in Budapest. Since 2010, and in a yearly schedule, Hello Wood organizes an art camp every summer, convoking about two hundred students. For 2015, the proposed theme was Project Village. Project Village examined village typologies and their means of production. The goal was to exercise alternative methods of master-planning and construction. All workshops proposed projects for given types, which would together build a village. Most of the students that gather at Hello Wood have an architectural background and are European, yet there is a percentage of non-architects and Asian, North, and South American. The workshop takes place in an artist residence, a property of about one-and-a-half hectares. It is two hours away from Budapest, in a rural setting. It lasts one week, during which all teams build a –or several– wooden structure(s). By working together, all the participants gain unique architectural experiences. The workshop Sleepingtories was set within the category of housing and offered—as an alternative to houses—places to sleep in public. The ten members of the team were: Valentin Desmarais (France - 23 years old - musician and engineer), Koen Fraijman (Netherlands - 22 years old - industrial design student), Jocelyn Froimovich (Chile - 33 years old - architect), Juli Keri (Hungary - 23 years old - architecture student), Bence Komlósi 2

(Hungary - 32 years old - architect), Ingvild Stokke (Norway - 20 years old - architecture student), Zita Tecsi (Hungary - 22 years old - architecture student), Jiayi Tian (China - 25 years old - architecture student), Fábián Villányi (Hungary- 21 years old architecture student), Marta Zabik (Poland- 20 years old - architecture student). The workshop was initiated by Jocelyn Froimovich and Bence Komlósi. Jocelyn is an architect from Chile that lives and works in New York. Bence is an architect from Hungary that lives and works in Zürich and Budapest. The rest of the members enrolled to the summer camp and chose to be in the Sleepingtories team. The team was organized so as to co-design and cobuild; all decisions were taken together, in a (close to) democratic structure. The workshop was structured in four sequences, each one or one-and-a-half days long. After six days of work, the team had produced five artifacts — Wombinator, Rockinator 1.0, Snail Box, Sleeping Meadow, and Messy Nest — and one prototype: Rockinator 2.0. Context

FRAMEWORK

Sleepingtories came about as a collaboration between Jocelyn Froimovich and Bence Komlósi. Bence and Jocelyn had never worked together before and only met online prior Hello Wood. Jocelyn Froimovich had been researching the topic of sleeping since 2010. This theme had risen during her studies at Columbia University, more specifically, within a studio lead by Professor Reinhold Martin, which dealt with public housing in Mumbai, India. Other motivations that triggered her interest in sleeping dealt with her personal difficulties to sleep following orthodox schedules; readings such as Jonathan Crary’s 24/7, which analyses our society as one that does not sleep enough; projects such as Nagakin Capsule Tower (1972) by Kisho Kurokawa, Paimio Sanatorium (1929) by Aino and Alvar Aalto, Melnikov’s House (1927-1929) and Sleep Sonata (1929-30) by Konstantin Melnikov; all of the latter projects as examples of an utopian idea of being able to sleep freely while inhabiting a city, without needing to go home. Bence Komlósi had been researching the topic of democracy, participatory- and co-design, teamwork, research-by-design and learning-by-doing since 2008. Driven by the young and fragile political structure 4

Framework

of Hungary, these democratic design methodologies were explored as possible responses. Bence had been implementing these methods, regardless of whether the task had to do with housing design, academic research, daily discussions, architectural design, or the organization of workshops. His work was inspired by ideas such as the ‘Flatwriter’ from Yona Friedman, ‘Housing by People’ by John F. C. Turner, ‘direct democracy’ in Switzerland; projects such as the ‘Torre David’ in Caracas, diverse student works by Rural Studio, the ‘Byker Wall’ by Ralph Erskine; and co-housing projects such as the ‘Sargfarbik’ in Vienna or the ‘Kalkbreite’ in Zürich. All these projects, as attempts to destabylize the organization installed in traditional design apparatuses, and alternatives to deploy horizontal structures of production within the field of architecture. The workshop was agreed as a combined effort. The design content, would be given by the topic of sleeping - the design methodology, by that of collaboration. Both sleeping and collaboration, became part of a more general and common interest, that of democracy.

DESIGN CONTENT SLEEPING

Of the three primordial bodily functions that promote direct architectural manifestations, resting-sleeping has been least integrated into the public realm. Unlike sleeping, eating-drinking has found a profusion of public manifestations – from leisurely picnics and terraces to rushed water fountains and food carts. Although urinating-defecating has been historically displaced as a private act, public toilets have been integrated to street life. Yet, sleeping carries some other connotations and its civic display is never prompted by a place designed for it. Sleeping is charged by social undertones that have historically tied this necessity to a bed within a dwelling. One can find people sleeping in a public situation – on a bench, in buses-trains, or lying on the sidewalk, if not a lawn– but it is always an outcome of deprivation. Possibly, urban planners consider sleeping in public a problem. Examples that allow this supposition: contemporary urban furniture is designed so one cannot lay down; lawns are many times fenced, off-sight urban corners are guarded to avoid occupation. There is no public place where one can sleep. Regardless of social class, income, or age, we are all tired and we could all use some rest.

Design Content

Transitory workers, homeless, urban slaves of hyperproductivity, over-scheduled children, and tourists: we all sleep much less than what we biologically need. Current capitalist notions of productivity expand to many realms, opposing the dreams of a restful nap. The need to sleep transcends social class and income differences. Sleeping –and thus being awake– exemplifies the paradigm of economic growth carrying social and political implications that trespass the frontiers of pragmatism. Society has changed to the extent that the tight connection between sleeping within the privatedomestic could be discussed, reassessed. Considering the constant mobilty of a considerable part of the population, only sleeping in homes or hotels seems an ineffective response. As a part of Project Village 2015, the workshop Sleepingtories would exhibit these questions to Hello Wood and its civic audience while proposing alternative ways of inhabiting our cities, towns, and villages. Freed from the bed and the dwelling, the ultimate goal of the workshop would be to design artifacts where people could publicly sleep. 7

DESIGN METHODOLOGY COLLABORATION The workshop had ten participants and lasted seven days. Inspired by the organization of film making, the organizers believed in the project of horizontal design; Horizontal not only because the outcome was that of a restful surface, but also because all members would be designing at the same time, with the same level of compromise. Film making, because this industry has kept on developing internal structures that allows for the development of expertise: There is a cameraman, a costume designer, a set production manager, a director, a scriptwriter. Each knows their role and contributes with their expert knowledge. This structure can also be found in other fields - such as musicians in an orchestra, or sports teams. This logic would help breaking prevalent ego-centered architectural tendencies. Each team member chose a role amongst the ones suggested by the organizers. Bence - Communication, Jocelyn - Organization, Valentin - Jolly Joker, Zita - Wood Joints, Jiayi Wood Structures, Koen - Wood Agendas, Ingvild - Sleeping Environments, Juli - Wood and Sleeping Economics, Fรกbiรกn - Sleeping Psychologies, Marta - Sleeping Ergonomics. Each member participated from the perspective of an expert and contributed to the design of the artifacts through their expertise. Although throughout the week, these expertises tended to disfigure, they were instrumental to initiate the work. The workshop week was subdivided into four sequences. Each sequence had a topic: Nomad, Sedentary, Open, Closed. These topics were used as guidelines that originated and lead the design discussions, design, and construction of artifacts to sleep in public spaces. The team organizers created a schedule, which was printed in a board and used throughout the week by all team members. 8

Design Methodology

The schedule was designed as a chart: on the left side, the time slots; on the right, the four sequences and their topics; above, the ten team members. The four sequences were marked in different colors. Each sequence was subdivided into Co-Design and Co-Build. The Co-Design phase was planned in an hourand-a-half and was subdivided into six stages (in parenthesis, the methodolgies applied for each): (1) Problem Collection (which used post-its as a method of quickly collecting ideas); (2) Definition of the problem (a sentence written by the whole team in consensus); (3) Design ideas by the experts (ideas on post-its); (4) Design ideas selection (selection of post-its via an open discussion and consensus); (5) Design (via sketches, models, and mockups, ending in a consensus); (6) To do list (ideas on post-its). The Co-Build phase had different lengths, from half a day to one-and-a-half. This phase was programmed in the to do list prepared previously, where team members were organized in sub teams and assigned tasks. The described phases were repeated in every sequence. Although the proposed timings for each phase varied in length, there was a common effort not to extend beyond the deadlines. The reiteration of these phases in four sequences allowed the team to practice the methodology and learn through its repetition. Because each sequence was very different from the other, one could also learn from contrasting the experiences. As the workshop progressed, the artifacts were exhibited to the audience and tested by potential users in public. Throughout the days, the team received feedbacks, and experienced their own designs. All these experiences were collected to apply in the future artifacts and in the final prototype.

NOMAD FIRST SEQUENCE Connecting the act of sleeping with the notion of being in transit, the first sequence — nomad — challenged the team to think of moveable artifacts. Co-Design Saturday July 11th, 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm (1) Problem Collection - 15 minutes: In this stage we used post-its to collect words, which were connected to the idea of of being a nomad and sleeping in public. After randomly posting ideas on a board, these were reorganized into six groups: - instant, immediate, simple, nap, stork bird - climate, comfort, noise, warm, light, womb, safety - communal - with animals, close to each other, with you - movement, how to carry?, wheels, rocking, camel, flexible, mobile, sleeping while moving - where to put?, on the side (hidden) (2) Problem Statement - 10 minutes: These words, and their organization, helped defining: “An artifact, device, tool which moves (from A to B), accessible, modular and provides a womb like environment for one or for more than one being (individual / community).” (3) Design Ideas - 15 minutes: With the problem statement in mind, the team collected design ideas to solve the problem: ship, hammock, a clearing made by an animal, womb, hammock with balloons, folding, sleeping mountain, dark, closed, simple, you wear it, roof which moves, nest, rolling. (4) Design Ideas Selection - 10 minutes: These were grouped into five design requirements: moves, modular, accessible, womb, one/more. (5) Design - 25 minutes: All team members sketched on one sheet of paper. The discussion was interactive, each expert contributing design ideas. Time running, design decisions were forced. The basic principle of having a tubular structure that allowed someone to roll satisfied most of the team members. The design was fragmented into parts that could be further designed by subteams. 10

Nomad

(6) To do list - 15 minutes: All team members decided what to do next day: Marta, Zita, and Juli would do the wheels; Valentin and Koen, the substructure that held the two wheels together; Fabian, Ingvild, and Jiayi, the womb that would be suspended inside the structure. The team decided that Jocelyn and Bence would take the role of coordinating between the sub-teams and help whenever necessary. Co-Build Sunday July 12th, 10:30 am - 7:00 pm Each sub-team had their tasks assigned from the previous day and internally decided what each person would do. Hands-on, in about three hours, the first artifact had already taken shape. As there was enough time to produce another artifact the same day, the whole team summoned and had a brief design discussion, which concluded in another design. This design took the principles of the previous one, but explored different ways in which to accommodate the body(ies): two wheels held transversal wooden joists that followed the trace of a body (or two) in a comfortable sitting position. As a team decision, tasks were re-assigned exchanging duties, so that all could try different tools and jobs. The second artifact was built. Monday July 13th, 10:30 am - 4 pm The team decided to keep on improving the two first artifacts, and at the same time produce a third one. That meant that the third artifact needed to be simple to produce. The idea of the curvature of the body traced as a silhouette was deemed successful. This triggered the third design, which would use the same principle, but in a horizontal, rather than sitting manner. Instead of horizontal joists, plywood would be bent and affixed between two wooden panels; instead of rolling, the artifact would be moved as a sledge.

Nomad

FIRST LEARNINGS

All team members were summoned to discuss and acknowledge the findings of the first sequence that could be useful to improve future group dynamics. Monday July 13th, 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm The discussion resulted in a list of learnings from the design process and the teamwork. Design Process - big rings take time - open questions (there can be questions which stay open during the design process) - stick to the decision (do not rethink ideas which have already been decided) - simplicity (is good) - leave space (and time) for surprise - one person should use one tool (to learn and become better at it) - learning by doing - measure twice - do not stick to detail (there is always more than one solution) - use your body (in ergonomic questions) - rope is OK (for testing) - search for alternatives Teamwork - managing (the team always needs a general manager who sees the bigger picture) - someone can become a manager naturally, if needed. - chaos (is part of the process) - responsibility (is important) - listen - be open 22

- help - ask for help - doubt (in your perfection - other peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideas can be also good) - eye contact (is necessary for good communication) - respect - trust - express yourself - roles (who does what, are required for good organization) - belonging (to the team) - teaching (others) - experts (exercise your expertises) - democratic structure (is what we are practicing) - believe - pay attention - appreciate - do not get stuck - flow (keep things going) - boundaries (acknowledge them) - leave small window open (space for flexibility, to look from a different angle) - big team - small groups (bigger, common picture goal and smaller tasks) - communication - stay grouped (the project changes really fast throughout the process) Other than words on a list, throughout the days these slowly became mottos that all team members could remember and remind one another.

First Learnings

SEDENTARY SECOND SEQUENCE

The second sequence’s topic — sedentary — suggested static places where to sleep in community. Co-Design Monday July 13th, 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm Although the schedule was to work next on the theme “closed”, the team decided it would be good to work on “sedentary”, so as to play with opposite design ideas from the “nomad” theme and have these fresh in mind. (1) Problem Collection - 15 minutes: Collection of words related to a static place to sleep in public, reorganized into seven groups: - light - size - big, gravity, jail, fixed, permanent, static - stable, sustainable, durable - entrance, privacy, belongings - location, bondings, related to landscape, by the river - tree, other project, (under)ground, under a bridge, site condition, site specific - border, peaceful, patience (2) Problem Statement - 10 minutes: “What is the “biggest nothing” we want to do for a festival sleeping environment? A region or space where you can sleep in a group.” (3) Design Ideas - 15 minutes: gigantic bed, sleeping pool, roof (low), sleeping holes, big nest, sleeping human sandwich, sleep tent, grid of columns, game, sleeping mountain, zones according to the need for sleep (15, 30, 60 minutes), a sign that says “you can sleep here”, pillow - bar (for borrowing pillows), sleep club, do it yourself workshops, sleeping competitions, a boring 9 AM lecture (makes everyone sleep) experience - new sleeping position, exhibition of sleeping people, simplest sleeping rope, artificial hole, switching on/off one of the senses, sleeping chain (bodies serving as others’ cushions), tell people how to build something to sleep in (hammock), earplugs, 24

pillow hat. (4) Design Ideas Selection - 10 minutes: These were grouped into five design requirements: biggest nothing, receiving entrance, gradient, and group sleep. (5) Design - 25 minutes: The team decided on a set of arches, dimensioned so that they would gradually change in size and delimit an area that would accommodate sleepers. The gradient would occur both in plan and in section. (6) To do list - 15 minutes: The team would split into two groups: the ones figuring out the arches, and the ones making the bases for the arches to stand on or be affixed to. Dimensions and shapes would be defined the following day based on the available material. Co-Build Tuesday July 14th, 10:30 am - 4:00 pm As per the schedule, this theme had the shortest Co-Build session. The team agreed to stick to this. The artifact should be extremely simple to build, considering the team had only a few hours to build it. While half of the team figured out the way in which to structure simple arches and determine their dimensions based on the length of the wooden joists, the other practiced angles on which one could rest using wooden leftover plates. In the fireplace close by, some team members found triangular seats, which inspired the idea for the bases for the arches. These were determined as two reclined planes that would serve to both support the arches, and provide resting surfaces inside and outside of the arched area. Both groups interacted intermittently to understand how to assemble the bases and arches together and how to design the progression from element to element. Sedentary

Sedentary

OPEN THIRD SEQUENCE

The theme open spoke about a place to sleep welcoming for everyone. Co-Design Tuesday July 14th, 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm (1) Problem Collection - 15 minutes: Collection of words related to a place to sleep in public open to all people. The words were reorganized into three main groups: - visible, bugs, mosquitos, bees, wind, cold, rain, smell, foster dogs, noise - drunks, drugs, village, comfort, smelly people, sharing, homeless - welcoming, simple, superficial, vulnerability, freedom, open to what?, symbolic, public, exposed, privacy, border (2) Problem Statement - 10 minutes: â&#x20AC;&#x153;How can an open social and natural environment provide comfort for a sleeper and for vulnerable people?â&#x20AC;? (3) Design Ideas - 15 minutes: guard - teddy bear, make you feel safe, icon, safe, another brick in the wall, above the ground, open - closed, watching but be invisible, panopticum, fence, star-cube, sleeping cabins, watching, bed / pool, focus, surrounded by trees, hiding, closed nest, communal nest, provoking sleeping together, community sleep - open air, people laying on each other, group security, somebody / something keeping you. (4) Design Ideas Selection - 10 minutes: These were grouped into four design requirements: nest, 3 persons (capacity), static (not rocking), maybe hanging. (5) Design - 25 minutes: The base of the nest would be a pentagonal or triangular shape with a whole in 34

the middle, where one could sit and through which one could access. This would be dimensioned so as to fit a minimum of three people. The base would be either suspended or on legs and the base sides would be constructed with angled panels. (6) To do list - 15 minutes: The sub-teams would be three: base, suspension or legs, side panels. Dimensions and shapes of all components would be based off the pentagonal or triangular sitting area. Co-Build Wednesday July 15th, 10:30 am - 7:00 pm, Thursday July 16th 10:30 am - 2:00pm The subteam in charge of the base had a heated discussion on sizes and whether the base should be triangular or pentagonal. They used chairs and benches to get a sense of what they were thinking and check on the dimensions scale one to one. They finally agreed on a pentagonal irregular shape, because the triangle left unusable corners, difficult to rest on. The side-panels subteam decided to split up: they would have the frames done first and then another subteam would do the infill of the frames. The frames subteam tested the angles of the panels with ropes and finalized their shapes and sizes once the base was decided. They would be interconnected to the base and amongst themselves with hinges, which were found in the tools room. The infill subteam had a difficult and prolonged discussion on how to infill the panels and finally established to use wood scraps from the village. The suspension or legs subteam settled on having the nest sit on legs. They went on designing the appropriate structure: three bases that in between would let the passage of a person. Open

Open

PROTOTYPE FOURTH SEQUENCE

The team decided on their favorite artifact to have it rebuilt as a prototype. The prototype was understood as an advanced version of the previous. The fourth sequence, as planned in the schedule, would have entailed producing a fourth artifact. This would have been based on the theme “closed”. The team decided that instead of doing another sequence, the process would be advanced one step further by improving the artifacts that were already built. Building a fourth artifact from scratch was discarded. Also, Hello Wood organizers suggested that it would be a good exercise to accomplish one of the designs in a more finalized manner. This idea was discussed and welcomed by all team members: building a finalized version would allow the team to capitalize on all the comments that were received through the public testing of the artifact. This would also show the rest of the groups participating in Hello Wood that the main interest of the Sleepingtories team was to think of design as an ongoing process, and not only reach a finalized version. By rebuilding one of the artifacts, the ideology of the workshop would be revealed to the public.

Prototype

Co-Design Thursday July 16th 4:00pm - 7:00pm The team decided to rework on the second artifact of the nomad series and had a session to see which of the design aspects were to be improved. The horizontal joist would be rounded so that the edges would not feel uncomfortable to the body; the wheels would be built with two sheets of plywood, so as to hide the screw heads from the exterior; the silhouette that dictated the curvature and the overall dimensions would be recalculated; the cushion for the interior would be redesigned. Co-Build Friday July 17th 10:00am - 7:00pm Ingvild and Jiayi took the task of cutting and sanding the wooden joists; Zita, Juli, Fábián, and Valentin cut the wheels and recalculated the silhouettes using their own bodies to measure. Jocelyn and Bence did the pillow. Koen and Marta worked on adjusting and improving the previous artifacts and when all parts were cut, joined the rest. 45

Prototype

PUBLIC PRESENTATION

Saturday July 18th 12:00pm The final day consisted on a public presentation, where all team leaders presented their projects to the Hello Wood Community, invited guests, and the general public that joined the event. As part of the objectives of Project Village, all artifacts were transported and sited within the context of the Village on a site chosen by Hello Wood, close to the camp. The team decided that Bence and Jocelyn would present the plot of the workshop, narrated from the perspective of the organizers. The heat and tiredness prevented a full disclosure of the ideas behind this endeavor, which this booklet intends to disclose. 48

Public Presentation

FINAL REMARKS (HAVING SLEPT)

There are certain occasions in which collisions are productive. The experience lived throughout the week at Hello Wood by the Sleepingtories Team was a collision in many ways: A collision of ideas, communication, ideals and languages. All between people who did not know each other before and did not share common backgrounds. The origin of the workshop had to do with questioning. Questioning Architecture today. Questioning its norms, traditions, and ways of thinking. The team questioned the way in which architecture becomes productive within society in the current political, social and economic context. Although all the scenarios were simulated and not real, the goal was to set up these questions and attempt to respond them. Why? What? How? The answers proposed were â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and still are â&#x20AC;&#x201D; tentative responses, representing scenarios to be tested through design. It was and is not intended for these answers to be prescriptive. Why do we do architecture? To contribute to society, in this case, to a more democratic one.

Although the general content was a given, its development was open for debate. The terms nomad, sedentary, and open were used as starting points; As placeholders, they could have been anything. What was required was a seed, a trigger to start the stream of ideas. Having a word to latch onto made the first steps easier. Wood became an allied: The ultimate material to learn by doing. It is easy to cut, make joints, test. By using wood, building became not the final outcome, but a design stage. This way, designs could be tested in a much more direct way and as part of an evolving process. Artifacts were built as 3D sketches, one to one scale. 3D sketches allowed using and testing the artifacts at a very early stage of the process. With the feedbacks of others and the experiences of the team, these sketches could be improved to then build a better prototype.

How do we do architecture? Together, collaboratively.

The construction of artifacts and the construction of a team run in parallel. Experiences were collected by repeating processes, smaller projects and their repetition allowed to test objects and ourselves. Learning from observing and comparing were mechanisms to apply both to the team and what it produced.

Teamwork became not only an axiom, but a construction on its own. The assignment of experts at first forced positions and opinions, then became a way of establishing responsibilities within a nonhierarchical structure.

The Sleepingtories team wishes all architects practicing today that they may question what they do and test alternative responses to these and other questions. The experience is intense, the outcome brave, its potential enormous.

What do we do if we do architecture? Respond to needs, desires, ideas. In this case, what we believed a social necessity: that of sleeping in public.

Timing forced decision-making; consensus had to be reached. Communicating thoughts in an efficient manner was a constant training. Ideas were forced under pressure, which helped radicalize and simplify them. Organization had to be reached at multiple levels, both as self-discipline, and throughout the team as a hole. Members took turns in managing tasks, and managing the team.

Final Remarks

THE TEAM

Valentin Desmarais (1992) studied Civil engineering in France. In 2013 he went on an Erasmus program to Denmark were he studied side by side with architects from all over Europe. Now Valentin is a professional musician in Budapest where he finds his inspiration in everyday life. Koen Fraijman (1993) was born and raised in Amsterdam. He now lives and studies in Delft. He has the ambition to organize, make and create beauty and positivity, in all its broad interpretations. Ranging from a tangible painting to an ephemeral event; Discovering the world and thereby life, inspiring and enthusing others. Jocelyn Froimovich (1981) is an architect from Chile that lives in New York. She has worked for architects such as Bernard Tschumi, Weiss-Manfredi, and Lehmann-Izquierdo. She has taught at Columbia University and Universidad Católica de Chile. She now practices independently.

Fábián Villányi (1994) is a Hungarian architecture student in Vienna. He likes solving the problems of architecture by strongly questioning possible solutions. His designs are born by the relation between mathematics, art and nature. Ingvild Stokke (1995) is an architecture student, living in Trondheim. She was born and raised in the outskirts of Oslo, Norway. Before architecture, she studied creative writing for a year. Jiayi Tian (1990) is an architectural postgraduate student from the University of Sheffield. She was born and raised in China, deeply marked by her childhood experiences of rural life. She is interested in dwellings different from that in urban areas. Not in high density and single function, but organic and multi-functional - combined with other activities like planting and interacting with the neighborhood.

Juli Keri (1992) studies in Hungary at Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design. Her previous studies were tourism-economics and now she found her way as an architecture student. She likes the process of thinking and designing and then bringing those ideas to life.

Zita Tecsi (1993) studies Architecture at MoholyNagy University of Art and Design, Hungary. Her studies were preluded by adventurous times in illustration, graphics design, and living in South America. She is open to learning from experienced people, meet creative, open-minded companions with whom to brainstorm and create something together.

Bence Komlosi (1982) is an architect from Hungary that lives in Zürich and works internationally. He studied in Hungary, Spain and Switzerland and currently studies a Doctor of Liberal Arts (DLA). He is co-founder of the Community Living and the Grand Home Budapest NGOs in Hungary and the dotlinearchitects office. He is a researcher, activist, educator and architect.

Marta Zabik (1995) studies Architecture in Warsaw University of Technology. She joined Hellowood because of her interest in wood and communal experiences: Wood with a specific texture, smell, evokes a variety of emotions, experiences, atmospheres; Communal work as not only about constructing installations – but organizing relationships, processes, writing scenarios.

The Team

BIBLIOGRAPHY Sleeping

Franck, K. A. and Ahrentzen, S. (ed.), (1989). New Households New Housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Turner, J. (1976). Housing by People – Towards Autonomy in Building Environments. London: Marion Boyars.

Crary, Jonathan, 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep, Verso, New York, 2014.

Friedman, Y. (2006). Pro Domo. Barcelona: ACTAR.

Vestbro, D. U. (ed.), (2010). Living together co-housing ideas and realities around the world. International collaborative housing conference. Royal Institute of Technology division of urban studies in collaboration with Kollektivhus NU. Stockholm, 5-9 May 2010. Stockholm: Universitetsservice US AB.

F. Javier Biurrun, Mateo Closa, Alfred Linares, El Sanatorio de Paimio, 1929-1933 : Alvar Aalto, la arquitectura entre la naturaleza y la máquina, Barcelona : Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), 1991. Wood, Tony, “Bodies at Rest. Konstantin Melnikov’s Sonata of Sleep” in Cabinet Magazine, Issue 24, Shadows, Winter 2006/07, New York. http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/24/wood.php Starr, Frederick S. Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society, Princeton University Press; n edition, 1981. Mullane, Matthew. Capsular Japan : the “information society” and Kisho Kurokawa’s Nakagin Capsule Tower, Thesis (M.A. in Modern Art History, Theory and Criticism) -- School of the Art Institute of Chicago, 2012. Collaboration Architecture for Humanity (ed.) (2006). Design Like You Give a Damn. New York: D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, Inc. and Metropolis Magazine. Architecture for Humanity (ed.) (2012). Design Like You Give a Damn 2. New York: Abrahams. Bush, K. M., Machinist, L. S. and McQuillin, J. (2013). My House Our House - Living Far Better for Far Less in a Cooperative Household. Pittsburgh: St. Lynn’s Press. Chatterton, P. (2015). Low Impact Living – A Field Guide to Ecological, Affordable Community Building. Oxon: Routledge. Denscombre, M. (2002).

Frieling, R., Groys, B., Atkins, R. and Manovich, L. (2008). The Art of Participation – 1950 to Now. New York: Thames & Hudson. Glatz, Zs. and Komlósi, B. (2014). Housing Norms vs. Real Needs. Bottom-Up Cohousing. Trans. 24. p. 74-79. Grand Home Budapest, (2015). Grand Home Budapest. [Online] Available from: https://www. facebook.com/ grandhomebudapest [Accessed: 07 July 2015]. Community Living. [Online] Available from: http:// kozossegbenelni.blogspot.hu [Accessed: 07 May 2015]. Lacaton & Vassal, (2015). Lacaton & Vassal. [Online] Available from: http://www.lacatonvassal. com [Accessed: 15 September 2015]. LaFond, M. et al. (ed.) (2012). CoHousing Cultures. Handbook for self-organized, community-oriented and sustainable housing. Berlin: id22: Institut für kreative Nachhaltigkeit. Lepik, A. (ed.) (2010). Small Scale Big Change – New Architectures of Social Engagement. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. LILAC, (2015). LILAC - Low Impact Living Affordable Community. [Online] Available from: http://www.lilac.coop [Accessed: June 7th 2015]. Pearson, L. F., (1988). The Architectural and Social History of Cooperative Living. London: The Macmillan Press.

Ground Rules for Good Research – a 19 Point Guide for Social Researchers. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

P.M., (1983). Bolo’bolo. Zürich: Paranoia City. Scotthanson, C. and Scotthanson, K., (2005). The Cohousing Handbook: Building a Place for Community. British Columbia: New Society Publishing.

Experimentdays, (2015). Experimentdays 2015 Berlin. [Online] Available from: http:// experimentdays.de/2015/ [Accessed: June 7th 2015].

Stahel, T. (2006). Wo-Wo-Wonige! Stadt- und wohnpolitische Bewegungen in Zürich nach 1968. Zürich: Paranoia city Verlag.

Hello Wood Janota, O., Pozsár, P. and Szemerey, S. (ed.) (2000). Hello Wood 1-5. Budapest: Hello Wood Kft. Közösségben Élni, (2015). Közösségben Élni -

PHOTO CREDITS All photos by Bence Komlósi, except: page 6 (left to right, top to bottom) 1. - http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/24/ MGrnCtyBW-3d.jpg accessed 28 September, 2015. 2. - http://artekstore.com/blogs/news/16485864paimio-sanatorium-form-follows-function accessed 28 September, 2015. 3. - https://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/ melnikov-bedroom.jpg?w=1200 accessed 28 September, 2015. 4. - https://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ lthjnem7TI1qao51vo1_500.jpg accessed 28 September, 2015. 5. - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/thumb/c/c6/Erskine_Verona.jpg/500pxErskine_Verona.jpg accessed 28 September, 2015. 6. - http://www.codi.or.th/housing/Prefab.html accessed 28 September, 2015. 7. - https://chlorinegardening.files.wordpress. com/2010/02/59778.jpg accessed 28 September, 2015. 8. - https://chlorinegardening.files.wordpress. com/2010/02/59778.jpg accessed 28 September, 2015. page 8 (top to bottom) 1. - http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/ cococinema/12317573/464152/464152_original.jpg accessed 28 September, 2015. 2. - http://theenglishfarm.com/sites/default/ files/328116148_b67ebd18e9_z_0.jpg accessed 28 September, 2015. page 48 (top to bottom) 1. - Jiayi Tian 2. - Jiayi Tian