How would you design your home? A research in collective design. by Korina Varvatou

How would you design your home? A research in collective design K. Varvatou1*, K. Sakantamis1,2 1

School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece 2 ArchSix Architecture Studio, Ag. Theodoras 5, 54623, Thessaloniki, Greece *Corresponding author: E-mail: korina_varvatou@hotmail.com, Tel +30 6989224075

Abstract In the contemporary world, overwhelmed by economic, social, geopolitical, technological and cultural changes, the design of a place that you can call “home” is increasingly getting challenging and complicated. The radical changes to traditional family structures and values, the economy or conflict-driven mass (im)migrations, human relationships that are more and more digitally connected and the new nomadic lifestyle that finds home wherever the wireless connection is, are few of the new conditions that architects should take into consideration when designing homes. The research presented forms part of a thesis/design diploma project, undertaken at the School of Architecture, AUTH, focusing on co-habitation and communal shared spaces. The paper analyses the collaborative design of homes, emphasizing user’s participation in community-driven residential design that allows for shared communal spaces rather than privately-owned units. The research methodology employs a survey/questionnaire, disseminated through social media, that seeks to identify the relationship that users have with their homes, while asking them to re-think and re-evaluate their attitude towards common – shared co-habitation patterns of living. Moreover, the survey becomes a tool for the initial participation of the users, focusing the design process on shared communal spaces that the respondents have proposed. The questionnaire consists of four parts; the first identifies the user (sex, age, personal status), the second investigates the relationship between the user and their home, the third part, formed by statements employing a Likert-type scale, focuses on the user’s attitude towards shared communal spaces, and finally, the fourth part asks users to describe the ideal home in three words, while suggesting for two functions communal shared spaces that they would like to see introduced in the context of the proposed design scheme. Less than two weeks since its initial dissemination, the on-going survey has reached 423 answers, revealing the willingness of people (architects and laymen alike) to participate in the design process, while highlighting the possibilities for community-driven design that emerge through the use of the social media. Keywords: Participation; collective design; collaborative design of homes; co-habitation;

How would you design your home? A research in collective design K. Varvatou1*, K. Sakantamis1,2 1

Abstract In the contemporary world, overwhelmed by economic, social, geopolitical, technological and cultural changes, the design of a place that one can call “home” is an increasingly challenging and complicated task. The research presented forms part of a thesis/design diploma project, undertaken at the School of Architecture, focusing on co-habitation and communal shared spaces. The paper analyses the collaborative design of homes, emphasising on user participation in community-driven residential design that favours the development of shared communal spaces over privately-owned units. The research methodology employs a survey/questionnaire, which seeks to identify the relationship that users have with their homes, while asking them to re-think and re-evaluate their attitude towards shared co-habitation patterns of living. Moreover, participatory processes and events become the tools for user participation, focusing the design process on shared communal spaces that the residents/occupiers and a broad spectrum of neighbourhood stakeholders have proposed for. Keywords: Participation; collective design; collaborative design of homes; co-habitation;

1. INTRODUCTION The research investigates the contradictory phenomenon of the increasing housing crisis and the abundance of unused industrial buildings. Conflict-driven mass (im)migrations fuel the on-going humanitarian crisis and make the provision of “adequate and descent” housing an imperative need. At the same time, the economic crisis has a profound effect on cities, like Thessaloniki (Greece), gradually dotting them with derelict industrial buildings, left behind by small (mainly textile) companies which have either ceased their operations or were relocated to countries with lower production costs. The research examines the possibilities inherent in these industrial remnants in accommodating a mixed-use brief, consisting of housing, retail, communal areas and public spaces, building upon their collective appreciation to formulate a vision for the regeneration of a previously vibrant and now almost derelict part of the city. The general public’s attitude towards co-habitation is interweaved with the current occupants’ and neighbours’ views/proposals for the building and the surrounding area, towards the formation of socially and economically viable scenarios for their regeneration. In Greece, the most common structure of living is the polykatoikia (a composite word from poly, translated as multi, and the noun katoikia, dwelling). The polykatoikia was originally conceived in the ‘30s as a multi-storey apartment block and was supported by the State in the form of a general building regulation and a property law, allowing landowners a tax-free trade of their buildable plot in exchange for built indoor space [1]. The polykatoikia became a building type applicable to a multitude of urban densities, absorbing all classes of society. According to the 2011 Population – Housing Census, 44.7% of Greek households are part of a polykatoikia [2]. However, the architecture of the polykatoikia, giving priority to private units over communal spaces, resulted in

extreme individualism. The unwillingness to share was previously fuelled by a buoyant housing market and economy; its collapse brought on the depreciation of houses and buildings in general but also revealed the unsustainable nature of this individuality. Despite the depreciation of housing units, heavy taxation, a shrinking economy and the absence of a social housing agenda still make the attainment of leased housing quite costly, especially for university students, young professionals, and/or disadvantaged parts of the society. The practice of co-habitation, especially common to the student population in other EU countries, but also favoured by singles or couples of young professionals, whereby one leases a room in an organised – shared house, is a largely alien concept that is yet to be developed. Hence, this research asks: Can a model of co-habitation, emphasizing on common spaces over private ones, be socially and economically viable in the Greek context? Can (or will) the users participate in the design process and negotiate the boundaries of their private domain? During the last decades, the housing-model that was put into practice to solve the housing crisis in Europe is called bofaellsskaber or co-housing in the English-speaking world. The idea seems to be new but, in fact, it is an old practice studied by many architects, psychologists and sociologists. Cohousing communities first appeared in Denmark in the late ‘60s, and the idea spread to many European countries, as well as the United States and Canada. Today in Europe, there are hundreds of cohousing communities and hundreds more in North America [3]. The main characteristics of cohousing are the existence of common facilities along with private dwellings, social interaction, resident participation in the development process and pragmatic social objectives. Moreover, the cohousing architects McCammant and Durrett define cohousing as the actions of co-developing, co-designing, and co-organizing with the group, and as a place with extensive common facilities, designed to emphasize community interactions, as completely resident managed with no hierarchy in decision making and no shared economy [4]. This paper consists of four parts; the first forms a theoretical background to collaborative design practices. The second draws on the literature review to form participatory experiments – processes that engaged the public on the concepts aforementioned. The third part of the paper evaluates and analyses the data collected while the fourth discusses and correlates them leading to a presentation of follow-up collaborative design actions. 2. COHOUSING AS A PARTICIPATORY PROCESS One of the most important features of cohousing is that it is “a genuine and authentic participative process” [4]. Usually, the process begins from a small group of people who are dissatisfied with the isolation of the typical suburban house or urban apartment, but want to avoid the opposite extreme of communal living. They want to be part of a community while retaining their independence and their right not to participate. As Eris Weaver, a group process consultant in a cohousing association claims, “successful cohousing communities spend as much time and energy on growing connections and attending to group process as they do on building and maintaining structures” [5]. Since the begging of the 20th century, public opinion becomes an issue to be researched, voiced and recorded and then employed on a wide range of problems, in order for them to be managed more effectively [6]. Already by the 1930s, public participation is used as a theoretical implement in many scientific fields, especially in social sciences. Scientists have since improved tools and means to collect and analyse data pertaining to the public’s opinion, enriching the existing knowledge and proposing for more efficient solutions [6]. During the ‘60s, more scientific fields, like political sciences and marketing, adapted the methods. Since the ‘80s, the procedures strengthened even more and clearly depicted a shift from the top-down decision-making model to a bottom-up

alternative [6], gradually bridging (in theoretical terms) the gap between decision-makers and those affected by the decisions they make. In the field of architecture, and especially in the design of housing, the lack of communication between architects and users, has disorientated architecture from its primary purpose of satisfying both the physical and psychological needs of people. The Modern Movement, considering home as an engine to be put the production line, intensified the problem, isolating the end-users form the design process. While according to Le Corbusier, “the house is an engine to live. Bath, sun, hot water, desired temperature, food conservation, hygiene…”, Bruno Taut -a pioneer in social housing from Weimar- claimed that “architecture turned to an instrument enforces enlightened, but alien to real user’s needs, ideas about how they should live in their homes” [7]. Further reasoning for the failings of the Modern Movement comes from Giancarlo de Carlo, who criticises the fact that it focused only on “how” the housing problem can be solved and left “for who” these houses are made aside [8]. Giancarlo de Carlo claimed that the design process should be done with the user and not for them. The differences pinpointed are qualitative. “When we plan ‘for’ people […] we tend to freeze it (the architectural event) into permanent fact. […] But if we plan ‘with’ people, consensus remains permanently open. […] In the case of planning ‘for’, the act of planning remains forever authoritarian and repressive, however liberal the initial intentions. In the case of planning ‘with’, the act becomes liberating and democratic, stimulating a multiple and continuous participation. This not only gives the planned event political legitimation: it also makes it resistant to the wear and tear of adverse circumstances and changing time” [8]. Considering the current radical political, socio-economic, cultural, technological and environmental challenges, collaborative design processes appear to be more relevant than ever. According to John Habraken the contemporary “common” buildings do not meet the expectations of their users, because they are unable to adapt to their needs [9]. There currently exist many indications that suggest that this is because they have been designed without them. 3. PARTICIPATORY EXPERIMENTS AND PROCESSES

Figure 1. The balloon guided people to the event of collaborative design in E. Hebrard Str.

3.1 How would you design your home? The initial phase of the research involved convenience sampling, employing a survey/questionnaire, disseminated through social media (Facebook, personal e-mails, e-magazines) [10] in order to identify the relationship that users have with their homes and examine the public’s attitude towards shared/co-habitation patterns of living. The questionnaire consists of four parts; the first identifies the user (sex, age, personal status), the second investigates the relationship between the user and their home, the third part - formed by Likert-type statements - focuses on the user’s attitude towards shared communal spaces, and finally, the fourth asks users to describe their ideal home in three words, while suggesting two communal/shared spaces that they would like to see introduced in the context of a co-housing scheme. Less than two weeks since its initial dissemination, the survey reached 423 answers, revealing the willingness of people (architects and laymen alike) to participate in the design process, while highlighting the possibilities for community-driven design that emerge through the use of the social media. The questionnaire was available online from 24.01.2017 to 28.02.2017 and gathered 438 responses in total. Overall, more women (79.9%) completed the questionnaire in comparison to men (20.1%). The majority belonged to the age group of 18-24 (44%) and 25-30 (25%), while the participation of people over the age of 55 was limited (7%). The allocation is justified by the fact that the social media, through which the questionnaire was distributed, are more familiar to young groups.

Figure 2. How people live and use their homes. As portrayed in figure 2, the living room is the space that inhabitants use the most; it is considered more public and there appears a strong willingness to share it with people outside of one’s household. The same public character applies to the kitchen while its use appears less intense. On the other hand, one’s bedroom is considered as the most private - the willingness to share declines noticeably. The bathroom understandably receives limited use and is considered private as well, while there is a noteworthy percentage of users that appear positive to its shared use. The office is placed on the boundaries of private and public spaces, with almost one out of four participants willing to share it with others. This early analysis focuses further investigations for introducing communal living areas and kitchens, sized to corresponding to the noted daily pattern of use, in the context of viable co-housing scenarios.

Figure 3. The user’s attitude towards shared communal spaces and activities. The third part of the questionnaire sought to identify the willingness of people to re-negotiate the boundaries between private and public spaces. As illustrated above (fig.3), there is a positive attitude not only towards the expansion of communal spaces at the expense of private ones, but also in sharing parts of the same household. This positive reaction increases radically when it comes to the augmentation of communal spaces in the structure / neighbourhood that people live in. This can be attributed to the fact that there are not sufficient communal spaces neither in the typical polykatoikia (condominium) nor in the city. The architecture of the polykatoikia prioritises private units, while treating common facilities as leftovers of the design process. The same lack of communal spaces expands to the city, as public spaces - parks, squares or playgrounds - are few and in a bad condition - the green spaces of the Municipality of Thessaloniki occupy only 4.38%, of its total surface area [11]. Moreover, people appear to have a generally positive attitude towards participating in communal activities, nevertheless not equally positive to their desire for their existence – an indication of the retention of a right to “not participate”.

Figure 4. Features of the ideal home

When people are asked to describe the ideal home in three words, “light” prevails as the dominant answer. The chaotic reconstruction of the city of Thessaloniki, mainly during the ‘60s and ‘70s resulted in high density areas with a problematic ratio of building height to road width. This has created inadequate exposure to natural light – let alone direct sunlight – which apparently influences most of the responses.

Figure 5. The communal spaces the participants suggested Finally, interesting results emerged from the participants’ suggestions for communal spaces (fig.5). The strong tendency for favouring a library as a communal space can be attributed to the dominant age group (18-24) comprising the sample. The desire for green spaces correlates to their, previously noted, limited availability in the city. Child-caring facilities, film production and multi-purpose spaces can also be justified in relation to the second dominant age group (25-30) and the overall noted willingness for communal spaces and activities (fig.4). 3.2 The initial contact - a very yellow Public Participation Experiment

Figure 6. Talking with owners, residents and passers-by during the event

Turning its attention from the research of the public’s attitude to the applicability of a co-housing scenario in a real context, the second phase of the research seeks to identify the possibilities inherent in derelict industrial buildings/areas that form part of the centre of Thessaloniki. A building complex comprising of two buildings connected/divided by an (unrealised) gallery of storefronts, now aptly named Ernest Hebrard street (which nonetheless is legally private property), became the application ground of choice. The complex is located at the area of Fragomahalas, taking its name by the Fragi (≈French - European) citizens of Thessaloniki that mainly lived there at the begging of the 19th century. By the second half of the 19th century, the area was the centre of light industry and commerce; stores, hotels, inns, studios, workshops and the first banks occupy the area. In 1917, the area survived the great fire, that destroyed 2/3 of the historic city, and so did few of the most significant buildings, dated to the begging of 19th century and the interwar period. During the 1970s industrial activities develop at the area to support a flourishing economy of new companies, specializing in fabrication, clothing and footwear. As the production was growing, more and more industries opened stores at the ground level to distribute their products. In addition, stores with relevant raw materials opened in close vicinity, forming a self-sufficient and complete production cycle. The global deindustrialization of the ‘80s forced industries to cease operation, leaving behind many abandoned buildings. What is more, during the past few years, the increasing import of clothing and footwear products, in conjunction with the global economic crisis, led the last remaining industries to closure or relocation, causing the further decline of the area. The echo of the bygone era has recently attracted people “of the arts and letters” – the creative industries to the area, who chose it to open their studios/workshops, and residences there, despite the current deserted state and bad reputation of the area. Their presence develops in itself a dynamic for sustainable mixed-use development. Nevertheless, the reduction of land values that leads to its slow occupation by the creative industries also makes it appealing to the entertainment industry which currently exploits the full potential of ground and upper floors, with cafes, restaurants, pubs and clubs occupying large parts of the area. The insistence on the Ernest Hebrard street complex lies in its considerable size and the peculiar derelict underdeveloped state of the buildings and their neighbourhood, which offer the grounds for the investigation of an alternative paradigm for the area’s regeneration. The few remaining lived spaces, comprise a mix of relatively new occupants on the almost abandoned upper floors while the ground floors are occupied by the older tenants and owners of shops, workshops and storage spaces related to the previously abundant light industry. The creative industries are represented by a few shops/workshops and also a café and a restaurant exist in close vicinity. Overall, the Ernest Hebrard street complex presents a structurally safe shell that is mostly underused; its regeneration can have large add-on benefits to the area. The engagement of the existing residents and neighbours in the regeneration of the complex is central to the goals of the co-housing experiment that the research seeks to investigate. An event to kick-start this active relationship was organised at the area. Come to design your neighbourhood together was the theme of this first event. The “yellow” theme of the posters – put up a week before the event – attracted several passers-by but also allowed a first meet and greet with the sceptical shop-owners of the E.H. str. The event itself took place on the 15th of February 2017. Balloons were set at nodal points in the area to guide passers-by to the event - a DIY reclaimed palette stand was set up, offering a very yellow homemade lemonade and snacks. The event’s organisation allowed for an unstructured exchange of views on the area with the residents, shop-owners and passers-by. Keeping to the yellow theme, the research also disseminated two kinds of questionnaires: a shortanswer one, disseminated to passers-by and stores around E.H. str., and an extensive, addressed mostly to the users/owners of the buildings who had more time to spare. After the event, local 10

stores/ cafes became agents of the research distributing questionnaires to people that use the area but could not attend the event; these were collected a week later. The acceptance of people was more than encouraging and the interest they showed significant. They were happy to discuss on the history of the area, on their relation with it and on the on-going context formed by the financial crisis. In addition, residents talked about the recent problems they faced with Thessaloniki’s municipality, when the latter recently announced the street’s urban redevelopment. For many years, the E. Hebrard street was considered public by most – including the authorities. In fact, the street is the void space left by the un-built roofed passage, connecting the two buildings, according to the original design documentation. The municipality had already started the reconstruction of the street, when one of the owners informed them about the private ownership. Many offered reasoning for objecting the renewal because it did not meet their needs and no one asked them about it. As a result, the road remained in a bad condition and people became more sceptical about any re-design proposal. Despite their reluctance on a particular proposal, the event participants were happy to offer their views on land uses that they would like to see introduced in the area and in the buildings alike. Moreover, they were asked about the advantages of the area and the problems that it faces. The event ended after 4 hours and the questionnaires collected were 41 short-answer and 12 extensive. The results are illustrated below, in figures 7,8, and 9.

Figure 7. User participation – variation / the advantages of the area. The majority of the participants works in the area and especially in the E. Hebrard str., for more than 8-10 years. Thus, they have formed a complete appreciation of its advantages and its problems. Most of them, workers and owners of stores, claimed that the main reason for their original preference was its prime location. Several years ago, the area was the heart of the commerce and plenty of stores were located on the street – the historical significance of the area – its proximity to the port - still strikes a chord in the shop-owners’ hearts. Most respondents blame the economic crisis for forcing many of them to cease operation or to relocate to a place easier to be accessed by their clients – access and parking positions are a challenging topic – which respondents claim was made worse after the urban renewal attempt by the Municipality.

Figure 8. The problems of the area.

Figure 9. The uses the participant proposed. The main use that participants would like to see in the street is commerce. They want the area to regain its former character, namely the liveliness of people visiting their stores. According to their opinion, the economic crisis hit their business, but the bad condition of the road and the almost abandoned buildings escalated the desertification of the area. In addition, they would like to see new uses, like housing and artistic facilities, in order for the area to form a permanent character. 4. COLLABORATIVE DESIGN, AN OPEN PROCESS The paper presented aims to set the ground for further discussion on the design process of homes, rather than to form a determined conclusion. It serves as an introduction of the main methodological tools employed thus far for the engagement of users as active participants of the design process. 12

Considering the results of the survey employed, there is evidence that a significant portion of the general public is open to a re-think of the fundamental dipole, private - public, when asked to negotiate the first to benefit from the second. Moreover, Thessaloniki currently provides many opportunities for the study of co-housing schemes, offering a suitable underused building inventory which allows for the provision of extensive communal spaces and sufficient private units alike but that is also strategically placed close to the centre of the city, offering wider possibilities for the sustainable regeneration of the area. The focus of the project on the E. Hebrard complex lies in the fact that despite its deserted image, it is still used by a noticeable amount of people. The purpose of the collective design process is to engage this population in the re-design and regeneration of the whole area. The design employs participation and interaction as the main tool and remains open and debatable. To achieve a continued discussion, a website is being built to serve as an exchange point between architects, current owners/residents and new potential users. Moreover, new events are being planned on-site to allow for the communication of initial design concepts. References 1. Aureli, P., V., Giudici M., S., Issaias P., 2012, From Dom-ino to polykatoikia, Domus, 962 2. Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2011 Population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Housing Census, http://www.statistics.gr/en/2011-census-pop-hous (accessed December 10, 2016) 3. Lietaert, M., 2007, The growth of cohousing in Europe, The Cohousing Association of United States, http://www.cohousing.org (accessed December 5, 2016) 4. McCamant and Durrett Architects, http://www.cohousingco.com/cohousing (accessed December 5, 2016) 5. Weaver, E., Group Process Consultant, The Cohousing Association of United States, http://www.cohousing.org (accessed December 5, 2016) 6. Stratigea, A., 2015, Historical progress of participation- Political guideline in global and European level on Theory and Methods of Participatory Planning, 1, 17-18 7. Lefas, P., 2008, Modern Architecture and traditional housing on Architecture and Housing, From Heidegger to Koolhaas, Plethron, Athens, 81 8. De Carlo, G., 2005, Architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Public on Architecture and Participation (eds Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D., Till), Spoon Press, London and New York, 12-14 9. Habraken, John N., 1972, Supports: An alternative to mass housing, Architectural Press, London, 65-72 10. Varvatou, K., 2017, New Tendencies in the way we live, Parallaxi e-mag, http://parallaximag.gr/life/poso-mporoume-na-allaxoume-ton-tropo-pou-katikoume (uploaded on January 24, 2017) 11. Ganatsas, P., Tsitsoni, T., Zagas, T., Tsakaldimi, M., 2002. Evaluation of the Urban Green Space in Thessaloniki, Proceedings of the 10th Hellenic Conference on Research, Protection and Management of Terrestrial Ecosystems of Peripheral Forest and Urban Green Areas, May 26-29, Tripoli, GR, 4-5