Megan Molé M.Arch Thesis by Megan Molé

parking structures for affordable urban living boston housing typologies introducing options for affordability

megan molé

acknowledgments to my family that continously supported me mom & dad vinny cayla bolt to my best friends caley emma to the professors that shaped my education and thesis N. Jonathan Unaka Lora Kim Mark Pasnik Jennifer Lee Michaliszyn Schendy Kernizan to my travels and future salvadora

parking structures for affordable urban living megan mole

abstract Underutilized parking garages can be redeveloped with a horizontal densification of deployed, prefabricated modules, as this new housing network works to create affordable and participatory living options for Boston’s households. Addressing affordable housing in Boston should begin with identifying methods to develop underutilized sites; allowing minimal costs for building new housing on these exsisting sites. Boston’s parking garages serve as dense, underutilized space, giving opportunity for prefabricated housing structures to be constructed on top, and eventually throughout these garages. As the density of cars decrease from the bottom to the top of these garages, this housing works to replace the decrease from top to bottom. As the city minimizes the use of cars and parking garages, my prefabricated modules are designed to replace vehicles, clearing space for much needed affordable housing in the city.These prefabricated modules are designed to weight as much per square foot as a vehicle, therefore easing the replacement of vehicles to housing. The modules are minimally designed out of lightweight CLT construction and thrive on the grid of these exsisting garages to minimize costs. Additionally, these units are designed to be flexible; allowing users to have options for living based on their household type and for affordability as modules can be seamlessly added or subtracted.

#prefabrication #underutilized sites #affordability #urban housing #participation #parking structures

contents

Introduction

Literature Review

Design as Research

Outcomes

thesis statement & argument key words setting context personal narrative audience book structure closing

introduction dwellings of the people unit flexibility building adaptation as a whole conclusion bibliography

personal investigations site selection and analysis visualizing data precedent studies flexible form parameters program formulation design test #1 design test #2 design test #3 design test #4 design test #5 analytique drawing artifact model endnotes

prefabricated modules participatory units guest street garage as test site garage axonometrics sections renders

Critical Reflections thesis defense reflection

01 Introduction

thesis statement & argument key words setting context personal narrative audience book structure closing

thesis statement

Underutilized parking garages can be redeveloped with a horizontal densification of deployed, prefabricated modules, as this new housing network works to create affordable and participatory living options for Boston’s households.

argument

Addressing affordable housing in Boston should begin with identifying methods to develop underutilized sites; allowing minimal costs for building new housing on these exsisting sites. Boston’s parking garages serve as dense, underutilized space, giving opportunity for prefabricated housing structures to be constructed on top, and eventually throughout these garages. As the density of cars decrease from the bottom to the top of these garages, this housing works to replace the decrease from top to bottom. As the city minimizes the use of cars and parking garages, my prefabricated modules are designed to replace vehicles, clearing space for much needed affordable housing in the city.These prefabricated modules are designed to weight as much per square foot as a vehicle, therefore easing the replacement of vehicles to housing. The modules are minimally designed out of lightweight CLT construction and thrive on the grid of these exsisting garages to minimize costs. Additionally, these units are designed to be flexible; allowing users to have options for living based on their household type and for affordability as modules can be seamlessly added or subtracted.

thesis statement & argument

keywords user adaptability The ability of a user to be able to adjust their new conditions or to be able to be modified for a new use or purpose, rather than adjusting to new conditions.

flexible forms

Allowing modularity and form to able to be easily modified to respond to altered circumstances or conditions of tenant lifestyles.

encouraging change Creating an architecture designed to help, stimulate or develop the act or instance of making or becoming different.

participatory Involving or characterized by user participation within urban housing.

affordability The ability to be afforded, primarily in the expensive city of Boston.

parking structure An independent structure dedicated to housing a

of more than two stories network of parked vehicles.

underutilized Underuse; specifically the underuse of multistory parking structures.

keywords

setting context portrait of Boston homeowner

setting context

average age based on population

20-34

total renter occupied housing units

175,116

total family households

129,542

total non-family households

139,980

affordability As Boston housing stands as one of the most expensive cities to afford housing in the United States today, the issue of affordability is one that must not be ignored. Almost 50% of all Boston households have either extremely low, very low, or low incomes, but only 27% of Boston’s rentable units are affordable (figure 01). Therefore, there is simply not enough affordable housing for the residents that need it. A new housing typology needs to work to address a new and realistic construction method for increasing affordable housing for these residents.

figure 01 current affordability of Boston housing

(Megan Mole CC BY)

setting context

changing social norms Societies change on local and global levels endlessly because of unforeseeable future events. Such as the 2019 Covid-19 pandemic, we must be ready to change our current lifestyles to those of which these unanticipated events produce. The level of adaptability proves that people can and will be flexible when necessary. With such a global example of flexibility among societies, starting with change on the scale of our homes seems like a manageable task. For instance, decades ago, our homes were not built increased plug load, as our societies today exist off the use of technology in our everyday lives. What will our societies look like in 5, 20, 100 years? Flexible architecture allows us to prepare ourselves for these inevitable changes in addition to global climate change. By creating a solid foundation of flexible housing in cities, we allow ourselves the necessary resources and space in the future to enable the changes that we encounter every day in our lives.

setting context

altering family typologies A direct impact of societal change within housing is the changing family typology, introducing new family types into 2021 housing. Since the 1950s, the general concept of the family has been prevalent in American society, but times are changing, and so are these families. “Society has long idolized the nuclear family—two married heterosexual parents of the same race with two biological children.” - Beth Ann Mayer The normalization of divorce and its increasing rates in the 21st century, marriage and childbirth occurring later in the average person’s life, and increases in interracial marriage, rights for LGBTQ parents and their marriages, and multigenerational households all contribute to the changing family typologies. Many families today do not categorize themselves as the “nuclear family” but instead are part of the “new family”; a new family typology that requires a new housing typology to account for changing needs of these households and their various situations.

figure 02 changing family types

setting context

growing populations Between 2010 and 2020, Massachusetts saw a population growth of about 480,000 people, raising Massachusetts’s overall population from around 6.5 million to 7 million. Nationally, and in correspondence to the pandemic, the total U.S. population grew about 0.35%. More people result in a specific issue in cities with less space in correspondence to growing populations. As more people move to cities, there becomes less land, and buildings must go up to commodate the change. Boston, in particular within the past five years, had 62,000 people who moved within Suffolk County, 28,000 people that moved from a different county within Massachusetts, and 13,000 people moved from abroad. Boston’s total population has grown by nearly 10 percent from 2010 to 2017 (figure 03). People are moving, populations are growing, and space is diminishing.

setting context

figure 03 Boston population growth

setting context

personal narrative Upon deciding what my thesis topic would consist of as an architecture student in her graduate semester, I found myself remembering my motives and initiatives for pursuing architecture school, to begin with. Since I was young, traveling with my family across the country and to various countries in Europe, I always found myself fascinated with foreign architecture I was not used to seeing every day in my small town in Massachusetts (castles in Portugal, gardens in Italy, and skyscrapers in New York City). With my grandma, mother, and aunt all-loving interior design, I was specifically interested in homes, and as a shy child, my home or my grandmother or aunt’s homes made me feel comfortable and secure. This idea of comfort within the home has led me to discover more about my passion for homes, specifically within space, form, decoration, and user experience within a home. Overall, I am interested in understanding the physical space of the dwelling and how different people form their spaces to match their own needs for satisfaction. As a child, I recognized the home as a familiar place, and as a graduate architecture student, I wanted to explore the boundaries of this familiarity by adapting interiors to make things your own. I believe that adaptability and flexibility serve an essential role in the future of architecture and how we as designers are responsible for designing the homes of the future that will encounter inevitable social, economic, and political changes in the United States and across the globe. Particularly understanding autonomy with dwellings, having always lived with my family in dwellings which my parents owned, I have always lived in environments that have allowed me to produce change within my dwelling. However, when I moved to college (in public, shared, urban dwellings), I understood that autonomy within a dwelling is not always feasible. Having to abide by strict rules of freshmen dorm housing, my lack of adaptability within my dorm (no moving furniture, no hanging things on walls or ceilings, no appliances to cook my own food, etc.) allowed me to adapt to my environment. As people adapt to environments, personal routines and rituals may be disrupted, ultimately affecting a person’s overall lifestyle. I believe limitations in affordable, urban, multifamily dwelling spaces should be explored to understand the different criteria of different families and people for living in their dwelling spaces.

personal narrative

Overall I believe that shared housing should be adaptable, and people should be allowed to go beyond normal limits and alter their space as they desire. How can we make our homes as comfortable as possible? How do we learn to share space with others and aspire positive social communications with our neighbors? How can the architecture positively foster healthy lifestyles, encourage user satisfaction, be good for the environment, and let us live freely and within limitations in these otherwise very limiting conditions? These questions can be evaluated and tested with flexible housing to understand the future of living in cities, and ultimately the future of the dwelling.

personal narrative

audience for homeowners

Boston living should be affordable and adaptable for all types of families and households. Adaptable housing addresses architecture on a more personal scale, enabling us to be the ultimate architect of how we choose to construct our residence as we are in charge of our lifestyles, resulting in various wants and needs for housing. With different lifestyles of living situations, we should express our housing desires freely. Specifically, with renting in Boston, Bostonians have the authority to be able to afford to live in the city.

audience

for the city of Boston

New and existing housing projects within the city of Boston should cater to all households, as changes to Boston’s housing market affect changes across the whole city. Affordable housing offers changes in Boston’s broader infrastructure network, as it connects residents with Boston’s overall organizational structure of living and working. Not only will affordable housing positively change the personal lifestyles of people inhabiting these dwelling, but the city overall can begin to experience various societal, environmental, and economic equality.

for the planet

With everchanging social, built, and environmental atmospheres, affordable and participatory housing constructions can lead to a broader network of connection among residents and their cities on national and global scales. Methods of adaptable, affordable, and participatory construction can become the most desirable methods of living, as they allow for equality of housing on a human scale and combine personal living with thriving community environments.

audience

book structure

02 Literature Review Text from Jia Beisi, Agatangelo Montellano, Joseph Heathcott, Earl Morris, Mary Winter, William Fawcett, Mies van der Rohe, and Ruth Glass consider people and their relationships to dwellings. Through flexible architecture, people can transform cities resulting in preparation for the uncertainty of our changing environments.

03 Design as Research A heavy influence by precedent studies narrate how housing can exihibit qualities of adaptability for users. Then, multiple design tests work to understand the meaning of parking structure sites, expansiveness of modular housing in urban settings, and programs that allow participatory action from people to create community-functioned environments of affordable urban housing.

book structure

04 Outcomes y & grow pla

access city

ty ni

bors & comm gh u ei

courtyards

privacy

A catalog of prefabricated modules develop into participatory units, formed at providing options of affordability for Boston’s unique households and residents. A grand scheme of using underutilized parking structure surfaces to minimize costs for these housing developments can be deployed across Boston, adding thousands of new and affordable units of dwelling.

05 Critical Reflection As the final thesis took place, a new understanding of the expansion of my housing network was suggested by guest critics. This feedback led to a new understanding of my own project and its importance within the city of Boston, its contribution to equity amongst city living, and reutilization of forgotten spaces.

book structure

closing Overall, my thesis attempts to provide a new typology for a changing world. As I have had strong opinions and experiences of dwelling spaces, I intend to provide an open-minded architecture that adapts to its people, offering them opportunities to afford beautiful Boston housing. Architecture should be empathetic with human needs and characteristics, and only through affordability and adaptability is the architecture allowed to become a dynamic manifestation of our personal lives within our dwellings. In continuation to understanding the need for adaptable architecture with flexible, modular forms, researching previous examples of adaptation within housing the urban environments further allows comprehension of the plausible uses of this type of architecture. Furthermore, comprehending changes without our society today through researching the changing family typology and how building adaptation can transform our urban environments will further acknowledge the need for affordable housing in cities.

closing

02 Literature Review

introduction dwellings of the people unit flexibility building adaptation as a whole conclusion bibliography

introduction This literature review emphasizes research and examples tested through housing studies and evaluates how the category of urban housing can possess aspects of flexibility and adaptability, shaped by people’s ordinary and everyday lifestyles. How homes shape people deﬁnes their personalities and lifelong experiences. Nevertheless, sometimes dwellings shape human lives in negative ways. Instead, individualistic human beings should have the autonomy to shape their dwellings and develop them in ways they feel are best for their well-being and comfort and how it affects others in their lives. Assessing preexisting dwellings and analyzing existing precedents of flexible urban design, this literature review looks forward to the future of urban housing on a city scale, national scale, and potentially a global and futuristic scale.

dwellings of the people dwellings deﬁned

In today’s society, housing is an essential organization where people coordinate their everyday lives. A dwelling describes our place of residence, where people wake up in the morning, return after a day of work, and retreat to sleep at night. It is a place where we duly conduct a balance between personal and work-life in a more modern sense. For many, the home is where people feel a sense of safety and security, being allowed to relax and be themselves outside of busy urban environments. Jia Beisi's1, post-doctorate research in Swiss housing and urban development helped to develop the opinion that housing has become increasingly more critical to our social lives, as the amount of time in which we are at home for work, relaxation, and schooling has been increasing more than ever before and will continue to increase in the future.

human communication and living Similarly, Le Corbusier energized the movement of adaptable housing through his Maison Domino. However, when utilized in urban building projects in Europe, users were unaware of the potential flexibility. Therefore, in making modern, flexible urban housing, participation should be required by the tenants to maximize the amount of potential adaptation presented by the architecture. As these examples of Le Corbusier’s Maison Domino failed to communicate the goals of flexible dwellings, Beisi studied how housing can communicate methods of flexible knowledge distribution directly from the architect to the owner to the resident. Beisi’s perspective on adaptable architecture is critical. He observes adaptable structures like the Maison Domino to only stand as physical aspects, where examples of 1

literature review

Beisi, Jia. "Adaptable housing or adaptable people." Architecture & Behaviour (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) 11 (1995): 139-162.

communication, ownership, and management play an equal role in the overall adaptability of a structure. Beisi states most convincingly that “adaptability in its physical aspect is only part of the story, even within this aspect the technical approaches are varied and complicated.” Overall, a combination between adaptable forms and people is required to achieve successful architecture. Beisi’s examples of flexible dwellings in Switzerland assess the original goals of four housing projects; Wohlen, Hellmutstrasse, Davidsboden CMS, and Brahmshof. Each common goal is to create a triangular relationship between the resident, the owner, and the housing itself. Common goals among all three are based on circulating information about how adaptable housing can accommodate a families’ needs, providing an experimental synthesis of a desirable home and ofﬁce atmosphere, an opportunity to actualize tenant self-management, implementing a relationship of adaptability with better living quality, and administering housing for different people, ultimately encouraging community living. The speciﬁcs for communicating these topics were done through meetings between owners, architects, and tenants, illustrated booklets, oral introductions, and participatory design meetings. These examples of adaptable urban housing prove a successful version of flexible housing as they were built upon the foundation of human communication to achieve the flourishing environments desired when adaptable housing is sought after.

satisfaction and comfort Considering that the United States housing markets' current condition primarily comprises of living within suburban and urban homes and apartments, studying why people experience discontent with their homes is a plausible example of why adaptable housing offers more of what everybody wants. According to Filiz Garip2, a sociology professor focusing on topics of mobility, people commonly ﬁnd flaws with their current environments, encouraging them to desire environmental change. Garip’s interpretations of migration are powerful, as she uses data and personal interviews with migrants to explain the natural need of people who become wanders; in search of personal satisfaction within their environments. “Every person is in a different world. They think differently.” (Garip 11). People have natural tendencies to move and search for better landscapes, and the built environment enables permanent shelter for individuals, which will most likely outlast the individual. Although Garip focuses more research data on the population of migrants from abroad, her opinion details our natural instincts for humans to desire dwellings that cater to themselves ﬁrst and foremost, providing themselves the maximum amount of comfort and satisfaction they deserve. Turkish

Garip, Filiz. “WHY DO PEOPLE MIGRATE?: Identifying Diverse Mechanisms of Migration.” In On the Move: Changing Mechanisms of Mexico-U.S. Migration, 10–38. Princeton University Press, 2017.

literature review

architects Nur Esin Altas and Ahsen Ozsoy3 specify that spatial adaptability and flexibility as a parameter allow for more quality housing because of increased user satisfaction. However, the degrees of residential satisfaction will gradually decrease over time because of the changing needs of occupants. Therefore, every existing dwelling that does not explicitly allow for spatial adaptability will decrease in comfort and satisfaction as time goes on, enabling people to have different, personal, and varying needs as society changes how they live their everyday lives. Altas and Ozsoy’s research though is vague is statistical data in relation to Russell N. James III4 research in statistical data of the decrease in comfort value that accompanies static architecture. He argues that tenant satisfaction measures the overall success of a housing project, where dissatisfied tenants are more likely to leave their current housing in search of something that fits their needs better. According to the 2005 American Housing Survey, “the cumulative analysis of 7,206 rented units in the United States featuring separated space associates with higher user satisfaction.” Although data suggests that people are happier with separated space, how can flourishing community environments be created when people desire separate space? James’ perspective is written through his background in philanthropy, planning, and economics, enabling us to understand the most desirable want of tenants among static housing. However, his perspective is not tested on adaptable examples of multifamily housing. His data is convincing, but question if people will have the same opinions of sharing space when put into more flexible environments that openly allow tenants to adapt their space to their needs. Building off James’ research, Earl Morris and Mary Winter5 argue in their A Theory of Family Housing Adjustment, that humans follow a preset of social housing norms to determine whether they achieve comfort and satisfaction in their dwellings. Morris and Winter state, “Housing needs are determined by the household…families change, and housing needs change rapidly as the family becomes more sensitive to the social and physical environment of the dwelling.” (Morris and Winter 80). Beginning their studies from the 1940s and 1950s, they can culminate a convincing history of measurable cultural norms that can be measured through observing behaviors in real-life situations to understand the different lenses of the individuals. This method enables Morris and Winter to understand better how families respond to their changing home environments. The needs of these individuals are built off of biological needs such as protection from the weather, outside elements, or predators. For others, housing needs require additional space, such as more play space for young children who need room to store their toys. These needs, when satisfied, increase the scale of satisfaction and comfort for a person within their home. Written in 1975, Morris and 3

Altaş, Nur Esin, and Ahsen Özsoy. "Spatial adaptability and flexibility as parameters of user satisfaction for quality housing." Building and environment 33, no. 5 (1998): 315-323.

4James

literature review

III, Russell N. "Multifamily housing characteristics and tenant satisfaction." Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21, no. 6 (2007): 472-480.

Morris, Earl W., and Mary Winter. “A Theory of Family Housing Adjustment.” Journal of Marriage and Family 37, no. 1 (1975): 79–88.

Winter’s studies in A Theory of Family Housing Adjustments address different households and their desire to change their environments, nonetheless foreshadowing the growing transformation of the American family and its changing household dynamics.

changing family dynamics After World War II in the United States, there was an increase in the construction of public housing. As a result, the vision of the typical family dwelling was characterized by images from America’s housing history, including those of Levittown, Pennsylvania, and the St. Louis Housing Authority in St. Louis, Missouri, for instance. With Joseph Heathcott’s6 professional background on housing, tenants’ rights, and redevelopment, he can illustrate common representations of the roles of genders and ages in promoting the St. Louis Housing Authority. Heathcott’s selective photography oughts to remind readers about the original image of the American household. Using housing promotional images encouraging tenants to move into St. Louis’ Housing after the war. “The official brochures of the SLHA depicted women occupied in traditional gendered pursuits of mothering, cooking, sewing, and gossiping.” (Heathcott 99). Heathcott’s evolution of the original family type is crucial to understanding the origins of the American dwelling and considering changed thinking over time. “This ideological preference for a specific family type had architectural consequences…they contained the men, women, and children in the projects, depicting residents in highly gendered poses and affirming private, nuclear family life.” (Heathcott 97) (figure 04). Nevertheless, these images are long-dated as research proves the changing typical family dynamic of an American Household.

figure 04 mother and daughter baking in St. Louis public housing

Heathcott, Joseph. “‘In the Nature of a Clinic’: The Design of Early Public Housing in St. Louis.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 70, no. 1 (2011): 82–103.

literature review

Drawing from Heathcott, Morris, and Winter’s 20th-century studies of family typologies and their relationship to dwellings, understanding datasets for the current, changed typology of housing proves worthwhile to understand more modern visions of urban housing. According to the Pew Research Center7, American family life today is entirely transforming, as the typical two-parent (male and female) households are declining due to increased divorce rates, remarriage, and cohabitation among households. Families are becoming smaller due to the growth of singleparent households and a decrease in the number of births in the United States. Pew Research Center additionally discovered that 16% of children live in blended families with a stepparent, step-sibling, or half-sibling. Among women, fertility is decreasing while less-educated adults have larger families, especially outside of marriage. Gender and race additionally take a role in changing the typical American family dynamic. Specialist in culture, diversity and inclusion, Nina Evason8 contributes to research about the changing economics of the American family. She states that men are commonly viewed as the breadwinners of their families, meaning they make more money than their spouses. However, there is a rise in labor force participation among mothers equalizing four in ten female breadwinners. African American women are more common to be female breadwinners (three in four mothers), charged by high rates of single motherhood. Evason’s perspective is driven towards being analytical with data but lacking the viewpoint or perspective of the “changed American Family.” Is it evident from data that typologies are changing, but what are the perspectives of those changing typologies, and have they always existed? By understanding the changing American dynamics of households, we can further advocate for an architecture that demands the changing American population to be considered. Lastly, in changing household types, the Pew Research Center9 reports that in 2021, there was an increase in support for gay marriage due to changing minds and changing demographics. Studies of population issues done by Joseph Chamie and Barry Mirkin10 address the new social phenomenon between same-sex marriage and how they signiﬁcantly alter the American family’s typology. Chamie and Mirkin address their article with an expression of blatant understanding stating, “these events are extraordinary, given that during most of the twentieth century, homosexuals were closeted and the concept of same-sex marriage was inconceivable, perceived by nearly all as an oxymoron.” (Chamie and Mirkin 529). Chamie and Mirkin’s research shows evidence of the progress seen in the United States of depicting the country as one with multiple public family typologies. With nearly a million American households composed of same-sex couples, it is evident that the image of 7

Pew Research Center. “Parenting in America: The American Family Today”. (2015). 1-103.

Evason, Nina. “American Culture: Gender Roles”. (2016).

Pew Research Center. “Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed minds and changing demographics”. (2013).

literature review

Chamie, Joseph, and Barry Mirkin. “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon.” Population and Development Review 37, no. 3 (2011).

American families is changing, and their dwellings should change with them.

unit ﬂexibility

building and using flexible architecture Overall, the design of urban multifamily housing units offers less autonomy, to begin with, as residents commonly impact the design of the unit, a direct consequence of their lifestyle choices. Nevertheless, these residents want satisfaction within their units, which flexibility can provide. Understanding flexibility in urban, multifamily housing is to understand that the architect is not involved within the final product of the building, instead merely providing the building blocks necessary for tenants to construct their residences. Tenants will ultimately use their rooms in various ways, all of which are not determined by the architect. Selfemployed Spanish Architect Agatangelo Soler Montellano studied housing flexibility by spatial indeterminacy, using the example of the Casa De Las Flores in Madrid, Spain11 (figure 05). Within this multifamily housing complex built by rational architect Secundino Zuazo, Montellano studies his floor plans as he characterizes them as examples of spatial indeterminacy or the units having no definite boundaries.

figure 05 Casa De Las Flores room flexibility

Montellano, Agatangelo Soler. "Housing flexibility by spatial indeterminacy: The case of the Casa de las Flores in Madrid." ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 9, no. 2 (2015): 4.

literature review

Instead, the rooms have independent access through a central corridor, allowing them to be used in different ways, combining them, dividing them, and being large enough in square footage to host different programs and events. When specifically studying the flexibility of the indeterminate space and how residents used these spaces, Montellano found that there were a total of 21 different apartment configurations, many being designed from the past and some designed for the future. For his study of the Casa De Las Flores, Montellano’s perspective begins with a sense of rationalism, the same sense that Zuazo used to design the structure with such flexibility, organization, and regard for future lifestyles. Montellano states, “this research aims to assess the validity of indeterminacy as an architectural response to social changes in Spain, with a view to its introduction in future housing developments.” (Montellano 1). By using interviews with users, photographs, diagrams, and new drawings from his perspective of how people use the building, the article convinces that flexibility is a logical and simplistic approach to designing urban housing for the future. Overall, these findings narrate how every space within these different configurations of dwellings have been used as a living room at some point, strengthening the idea that people will make use of what they are provided with and many different people cycling through a single unit will result in many different configurations and lifecycles of the same spaces. Concerning Montellano’s study, Ludwig Mies van Der Rohe studies indeterminacy in his Weissenhofsieflung housing (figure 06). Professor of Architecture history Mark Stankard12 precisely studies how Mies controls the site’s appearance as an architect yet allows the housing units freedom of expression when the residents come around. Mies states, “In order to permit each one as much freedom as possible to execute his ideas, I have set neither guidelines nor given programmatic orientation.” In order to provide a simple exterior that served as a backdrop, Mies used flat roofs, no ornamentation, no color, and standardized wooden frame windows and doors. In addition, standard components on the interior of the units provided a standardized outlook, as windows, doors, stairs, plumbing of kitchens, laundry baths, and floor finishes all not allowed to be transformed to provide a basic orientation for a furthering of residential freedom. Stankard also illustrates how Mies did not furnish units to demonstrate the moveable wall components of the architecture while buyers visited the units. Instead, by not completing the displayed units, Mies uses this as a communication tool, similar to the tools Beisi studied, to explain how people will understand and experience the full potential of their units. In Beisi’s and Stankard’s studies, communication allows for a broader sense of understanding, providing a relationship between the architect and the resident. Not in all cases are these relationships direct, though, and the architect must use alternative ways to communicate their architecture to the resident, ultimately rendering them an architect of their residential narrative. Stankard’s perspective is rooted in historical curiosity, ultimately investigating why Mies would use such simplicity in order to create an adaptable architecture, “focusing on Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s own apartment block as a didactic constructed manifesto.” This 12

literature review

Stankard, Mark. “Re-Covering Mies van der Rohe’s Weissenhof: The Ultimate Surface.” ACSA International Conference (1998): 267-271.

perspective is a compelling force for understanding Stankard’s study on Mies’ Weissenhof, as he considers Mies’ manifesto as an architect and how current architects can adapt this manifesto into their narrative for architecture.

figure 06 Weissenhofsieflung interior standardized components

current changes residents desire Urban studies’ professors Stephan and Pnina Plaut13 began to explore decisions among housing residents further to move and renovate their houses or apartments. Speciﬁcally referencing renovations, studies were done of characteristics of households in relationship to renovations or needs for change within the unit. For instance, the Plauts evaluate speciﬁc characteristics of the need for change, where the want for structural change is more likely to have a male head of household and be composed around a younger married couple with higher incomes. The Plauts have neutral perspectives about changes that residents desire, as they present their research mostly in forms of data taken from the American Housing Survey. The data is helpful to understand what types of people tend to make what types of decisions regarding their housing. However, it does not consider conditions such as the location or environments that affect these people who want to make a change. Studies valuable to a thesis of adaptable architecture must understand the people and their narratives to get a complete understanding of the changes they desire. Overall, by studying the roles that homeowners make when renovating spaces with complete autonomy, we can further evaluate the changes that new residents would want in dense, urban, multifamily housing, typically one 13

Plaut, Pnina, and Stephen Plaut. "Decisions to Renovate and to Move." Journal of Real Estate Research 32, no. 4 (2010): 461-484.

literature review

that makes it extremely difﬁcult or impossible to make any changes at all. Plauts’ studies evaluate how speciﬁc households of different ages, marital status, race, culture, or gender contribute to the household’s overall decision to renovate their house compared to moving to a different house. Most of the data overall in the article remain as statistics, including numerous datasets, but is unhelpful when considering the reasons these people want to change their lifestyles within their dwellings.

building adaptation as a whole

the economics in designing for uncertainty William Fawcett14 , an architect with knowledge in mathematical approaches to adaptability within buildings, investigates how investing in flexibility is crucial in preparing ourselves for an unforeseeable future. Focusing on two topics of uncertainty, activity and environmental, Fawcett evaluates innovative and meticulous ways to quantify adaptability within architecture as a whole. According to Fawcett, when evaluating architecture within an urban landscape, “growth and change cannot be predicted, which is why flexibility is sought” (Fawcett 1). Likewise, environmental flexibility should rely on flexible environments for growth and change instead of the current mindset of relying on judgment through educated guesswork. Differing slightly from environmental uncertainty, activity uncertainty among residential architecture has a broader spectrum of understanding, Fawcett stating that we often know more about possible activities we might conduct in the future. Therefore, by convincing our communities to invest in flexible strategies, speciﬁcally in residential architecture, we can signiﬁcantly prepare ourselves for uncertainty within the future of our cities. The idea of replacing uncertainty with flexibility is crucial to demand a more considerable understanding for future preparation within the built environment. This perspective of substitution of architectural mindsets and systems by Fawcett is consistently persuaded, encouraging a proactive approach to prepare ourselves for the future. Alongside Fawcett’s persistence towards replacement within current systems of thinking about urbanism, housing urbanists Clare Lyster and Judith K. De Jong15 further evaluate how urban housing must be reimagined as an initiator of change in cities due to demographic, climate, and social changes as well as economic uncertainty. Similar to Fawcett’s pressure to propel stakeholders to invest in the economics of flexible housing, Lyster and Jong comparably push for flexible design within cities. It is argued that housing is typically developer-driven, usually promoting a

Fawcett, William. "Investing in flexibility: The lifecycle options approach." Projections 10 (2011): 13-29.

Lyster, Clare, and Judith K. De Jong. “Housing Urbanism.” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 65, no. 1 (2011): 7–12.

literature review

tactic of contributing to existing urban housing markets rather than leading the market with changing technologies and developments through adaptability within housing. “Housing must be re-conceived as a generator - rather than a result - of a broader urban paradigm.” (Lyster and Jong 1). Lyster and Jong argue that the relationship between housing and the city is mainly disregarded, focusing on only the scale of the individual resident rather. At an architectural scale, alternative typologies for urban housing must be sought to address changing contemporary lifestyles through work and life, communities, and aging, changing populations. Like Fawcett’s motivating perspective, Lyster and Jong argue for a change to urban housing; a change that requires a transformation in the typology of current urban housing. “Housing can become a viable initiator of new ways and forms of life in the contemporary metropolis.” (Lyster and Jong 1).

changing buildings and transforming cities Addressing the issue of static housing conditions in cities from Lyster and Jong, it is argued that at the urban scale, adaptable housing must be merged with regional systems in cities such as transportation and other large metropolitan infrastructures in order to flourish. They push for an overall new urban way of living that transforms the city by replacing building typologies similar to the urban typologies seen in Le Corbusier’s city plans for Ville Contemporaine, Radiant City, and Plan Voisin. For instance, in Corbusier’s Radiant City, an overall better personal lifestyle was sought after, and overcrowding in cities was addressed as long as 90 years ago. Socialist Ruth Glass 16 similarly addresses the transformation of our cities; as space for buildings becomes increasingly scarce, people must find new ways of living due to population growth and unsatisfied demands for housing as new standards arise in our ever-changing living patterns. Written in 1965 and arguable still applicable in 2021, Ruth argues that the range of housing types must be broadened, and the adaptability of households will be encouraged not to waste urban space. Ruth’s outlook on urban architecture addresses what our cities will become in the future. Almost 60 years later, there continues to be unsatisfied demands for urban housing, persuading the notion that adaptable architecture has been argued for an extensive amount of time before it is too late. “The approach to the shaping of environment, in general, and in detail, will have to be radically revised.” (Glass 634). A similarly encouraged city-wide transformation is studied by environmentalists Sebastian Moffatt and Peter Russell17. Starting with changing our built environment through our most understood architectural typology of the home, Moffatt and Russell start their studies from the individual scale and extend their magnitude of research to the overall cityscale (addresses office buildings and public businesses as places 16

Glass, Ruth. “Social Determinants of Housing Design.” Ofﬁcial Architecture and Planning 28, no. 5 (1965): 633–35.

Moffatt, Sebastian, and Peter Russell. "Assessing the adaptability of buildings." IEA Annex 31 (2001).

literature review

susceptible to adaptable practices). Moffatt and Russell express their studies as logical organizations of terms; attributes of building conversion from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). “The ﬁrst step in evaluating the adaptability of a building is simply to determine whether or not a conscious effort has been made to address key principles of adaptability.” (Moffatt and Russell 7). Of these key principles, durability, versatility, access to services, redundancy, simplicity, upgradability, independence, and building information all contribute to how existing architecture can access means to flexibility and adaptability. Adaptability and flexibility must be addressed in both new and existing construction to make a city-wide transformation and the “checklist” of critical principles of adaptability. This list may be a convincing way to advocate for adaptable architecture by introducing general principles that all buildings can incorporate into their architecture to produce more flexible forms. However, these fundamental principles are vague, possibly up for interpretation. The conclusion of creating a general guide for a broader network of flexibility within the infrastructures of cities beyond housing is ﬁrm. However, it must be developed in detailed ways to unite cities as a whole and provide a city-wide network of flexible, adjustable, adaptable, and participatory spaces.

conclusion By understanding people and their relationships to dwellings and studying the changes they desire or have completed in the past within their residence, flexible architecture can change buildings and transform cities, resulting in a more signiﬁcant preparation for the uncertainty of our changing environments and transforming social activities. Best considered by Jia Beisi and Agatangelo Soler Montellano, flexible architecture must be participatory between the architect and the designer and should address the dwelling on a personal scale. Joseph Heathcott, Earl Morris, and Mary Winter additionally convince that the public image of adaptable architecture is changing and that advocating for flexible architecture should begin with understanding the changing dynamics of the lifestyles within the architecture. Finally, William Fawcett, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and Ruth Glass contribute signiﬁcantly to the understanding of radical mentalities within urban housing, as these projects are designed for us and the unanticipated generations to come.

literature review

03 Design as Research

personal investigations This chapter focuses on investigations of affordable housing design within the urban context. Site plays a crucial role in the success of affordability within housing, but at times is not necessary when exploring methods of housing. By developing tests of housing conditions, forms, and narratives off site, I was able to develop a system that allowed prefabrication to make site flexible upon deployment. These design tests explore ways in which a typology can be repeated on numerous sites, while enabled affordability and adaptability for residents.

personal investigations

site selection & analysis variability on three scales Initially my selection for the site was based upon the need to test various scales to understand how adaptability develops in urban environments such as Boston. In order to investigate urban forms, testing adaptability in three dimensions in necessary to narrate the influence of various forms and parameters beyind the site boundaries. to investigate and test form development and change over time By testing and comparing three familiars, I can make suggestions and predict how adaptable architecture may adapt over time. Comparing compact, tall and wide forms, I can further understand how the form can manipulate itself within the site and how these forms are informed by their boundaries By doing tests of form aggregation, I decided upon further investigating a wide and dense site as the other sites eventually became problematic (as they were not viable to become affordable sites in Boston). Land is expensive with no excuse from this high valued sites. Site then took a more sensitive approach, and the parking garage structure was eventually chosen.

site selection & analysis

1 compact [800sqft] FAR: 4 max height: 70’

figure 07 testing form scales for sites

(Megan Mole CC BY)

2 tall

[2000sqft] FAR: 10-14 max height: 155275’

community/institutional multifamily residential open space residential mixed use

3 wide

[8000sqft] FAR: 6-8 max height: 80’ 125’

site selection & anaylsis

100k 75k 50k 25k

building northeastern home

building on parking garage

figure 08 parking structures across Boston

(Megan Mole CC BY)

cost per land sqft av. single family house sqft

$76 x 1,744sqft

cost per land sqft max unit sqft

$48.61 x 1,550sqft

cost of land

= $132,500

cost of land

= 75,345

construction costs land costs

$397,500 + $132,500

construction costs land costs

$162,000 + $75,345

total cost

= $530,000

total cost

= $222,762

* 3 bed * 2 bed *1 bed/studio

= $222,762 = $205,749 = $193,596

*for 3 bedrooms

figure 09 comparing building on land vs. parking garage (Megan Mole CC BY)

site selection & analysis

parking structures as site for horizontal densification

In order to provide affordable housing for Boston’s residents, addressing one of the most expensive costs of housing is essential. This cost is land. Traditional costs of land in Boston are extremely high, therefore making new developments extremely costly. By minimizing the initial cost of land , we can therefore minimize the cost of housing for Boston’s residents. Underutilized parking garages structures serve as affordable alternatives to the traditional sense of land. Instead of building on traditional land, top surfaces on these parking garages became a new concrete land, at extremely discounted prices. (Figure

09) displays the costs of building on traditional plots of land in the northeast versus building on plots of parking garage land. Not only are land costs 50% cheaper on parking garages, the use of prefabrication extremely lessened the cost of building on these plots as well.

site selection & anaylsis

visualizing data understanding local issues

Pre-choosing a site to develop my thesis, I was interested in the urban environments in which housing lives. Having a deep understanding of Boston (having lived in and studied the city for five years), I wanted to analyze the Boston homeowner. The portrait of the average Boston Homeowner (figure 10) represents current data from 2020, where the most significant percentage of Boston’s population categorized by age reveals the average person is between 20-34 years old. This data set represents college students and young adults looking to buy or rent houses and apartments after high school or college. A majority of housing in Boston is rented and represents non-family households. Evaluating this data set made me curious about housing for families and adults and the average Boston homeowner between 20-34 years old, renting and rooming with non-family members. This data set is crucial for my program development, as it must essentially incorporate the actual Boston homeowner, not one that we may think will be buying or renting housing in Boston.

visualizing data

figure 10 portrait of average Boston homeowner (Megan Mole CC BY)

visualizing data

understanding state and nationwide issues

On a national scale, the first map of the United States depicts that more than a fifth of households in several states struggled to pay their rent at the beginning of 2021. In the state of Massachusetts, 12-15% of renters struggled to pay their rent (figure 11). This can be compared to other states that have larger cities than those in Massachusetts, such as New York City, New York, Chicago, Illinois, and Indianapolis, Indiana, all of which have a percentage of 20 and over of people who are struggling to pay their rent with the current urban housing situation.

figure 11 nationwide struggle to pay rent

visualizing data

(figure 12) depicts the social changes among homeownership

in the United States, where each generation’s homeownership numbers are declining annually. This means that younger generations are not buying houses as much as the generation above them, directly linked with the rising average cost of housing. (figure

13) shows the median and mean sales price of homes in the U.S. by year. Most significant in this data is the jump from 2015 to 2021, with the most significant difference in average pricing, meaning within the past six years, housing has increased in cost the most over 40 years.

Affordable Housing - the government says housing is “affordable” if a family spends no more than 30% of their income to live there Real Estate median home price

$374,900 home price increase 16% from 2020 to 2021 median home price increase 416% from 1980 to 2020 year

mean sales price of median sales price of homes in the U.S. homes in the U.S.

1980

$63,700

$73,600

$82,800

$98,500

$123,900

$149,500

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2021

$130,000

$153,500

$165,300

$202,900

$232,500

$288,500

$222,900

$275,300

$289,200

$348,000

$329,000

$383,000

why are houses so expensive? figure 12 difference in

homeownership -higher cost for land, labor,rates building materials including lumber

figure 13 increasing sales prices of U.S. homes visualizing data 55

replacing cars with housing By deploying a new housing typology on parking garage structure sites, I was curious of the scale and impact that this new typology can have among the city of Boston. (Figure 15) explores the weight of an average car and compares it to the weight of an average prefabricated housing module. The average weight per square feet is almost identical at about 42 pounds per squarefoot. Therefore the weight of new prefabricated housing would not impose much of the existing structures of the parking garages. (Figure 16) displays taking a prefabricated unit of about 600 square feet and deploying them on all parking garage sites across Boston (amounting to over 1,000,000sqft of flat space. Then using multiple stories of the parking garages could amount to over 2,000,000sqft of space available for new affordable housing in Boston. (Figure 17) presents that this new typology could create almost 3,500 new units of housing that could house almost 8,000 people affordably in Boston.

figure 14 current housing google search

visualizing data

58,571

car

prefabricated module

figure 15 replacing the weight of cars with prefabricated modules

(Megan Mole CC BY)

average sqft: 100sqft

average sqft: 97.6sqft weight per sqft: 42.6lbs

weight per sqft: 42.5 lbs

total weight: 4,157.8lbs

total weight: 4,250lbs

average unit sqft: 600sqft

amount of ﬂat space: 1,034,600sqft

times 2 stories: 2,069,200sqft figure 16 amount of housing that can fit on parking garages (Megan Mole CC BY)

x 34

3,449 units x 2.31 people: house 7,966 people affordably

figure 17 amount of new units and people to be housed affordably (Megan Mole CC BY)

visualizing data

precedent studies timeline of people and flexibility Understanding the defintion of adaptability in relationship to affordability aided in my selection of precedents that explore housing categorized by change and program. Each precedent investigation understands and compares various points of exploration of people, scale, site, program, budget, and adaptability which allow for an architectural change overall. The timeline of precedents shows the evolution of housing from it’s early development in the 20th century to its modern implementation for 21st century households.

precedent studies

precedent criteria people Architecture influenced by people; creating a physical change in the architectural landscape which is influenced by people

scale Various scales of housing from the indiviudal unit to the overall scale of the site allow for a greater understanding on how adaptability influences architecture when at different scales.

site Researching numerous sites with different climates, zoning, conditions, and purposes for building adaptable architecture further allows for precedent on which sites may work for adaptable housing . Site as well researches and compares urban, rural, and suburban condition of housing.

program Program mainly researched is housing, which gives examples of adaptable forms of architecture that could influence a multifamily housing development in Boston.

affordability From architecture with no walls , to Chilean housing developments with hundreds of units, researching budget on various scales allows for a greater understanding of past and current markets of affordable housing within the United States and beyond.

precedent studies

URBAN/CITY DESIGNER

SCALES

built with an open, modular structure,

for residents and architects. allowing for change and adaptability.

Maison Domino Le Corbusier - 1914

Architecture activated by movement and people, built with an open, modular structure, allowing for change and adaptability

providing ﬂexible ground plans,

Weisssenhof Estate Mies van der Rohe - 1927

Creation of a skeleton structure, providing ﬂexible ground plans for residents and architects

USER

Architecture activated by movement and people,

precedent studies

Creation of a skeleton structure,

inde of

by using rooms in multiple ways

as a precedent for future housing developments

Casa de las Flores Secundino Zuazo - 1931

Using indeterminacy of domestic space by using rooms in multiple as a precedent for future housing developments

Using indeterminacy of domestic space

combined in a variety of ways to produce different types of internal spacial conﬁgurations

resulting in an impossible visual connection of units for privacy

Gifu Kitagata Apartments Sanaa- 1998 A volume of arranged blocks of units, combined in a variety of ways to produce different types of internal spacial conﬁgurations resulting in an impossible visual connection of units for privacy

A volume of arranged blocks of units

precedent studies

integrating various programs through circulation,

resulting in overlapping shared spaces between generations and people

Intergenerational Center Nadaaa - 2000s Designed to foster social interaction, integrating various programs through circulation, resulting in overlapping shared spaces between generations and people

Designed to foster social interaction,

precedent studies

for visitors, vendors and residents. designed to be put together,

Dragon Court Village Eureka - 2012

Same architecture for different people, designed to be put together, for visitors, vendors and residents

Same architecture for different people,

Peo

P occu sam with pro

designed to be open and closed,

for growing communities and changing people.

Songpa Micro-Housing Ssd Architects - 2014

People occupying the same spaces with different programs, designed to be open and closed, for growing communities and changing people

People occupying the same spaces with different programs,

to allow for adaptability,

Half House Alejandro Aravena - 2016 Creating a shell and giving people half of what they need, to allow for adaptability, and foster community envrionments

FUTURE

ndors

and foster community environments.

Creating a shell, and giving people halfof what they need,

precedent studies

Architect NL Architects Year 2018 Location Frankfort, Germany

critiquing and analyzing terrace house

Using static architecture as a point for critique in fixed housing constructions, I can develop more defined movement methods and adaptability within forms and structures. For example, the Terrace House, designed by NL Architects, was planned as a housing complex built to encourage residents to take care of communal spaces and terraced outdoor environments. The project considered community practices and participatory strategies as it encouraged these tenants to work together to maintain spaces, which requires flexibility among residents to take responsibility for their spaces. Contrastingly, residents’ rooms are fixed, not allowing the change or adaptation that is encouraged within the outdoor terraces. (figure 18) considers early methods of how these units could move or change given their site extents. (figure 19) further considers how the forms of these units could develop manipulations based upon what the users want. Finally, the matrix considers five matrices of manipulations on top of manipulations to understand the boundaries of space within flexible architecture, potentially exploring opportunities for architectural growth.

figure 18 Terrace House exterior perspective

personal investigations

shrink join

expand

split

deconstruct

Flexibile Matrix for Living join

(Megan Mole CC BY)

expand

horizontal expansion

split

deconstruct

deconstruct split

expand

join

shrink

figure 19 Terrace House form critique of form flexibility

figure 20 flexible forms through codes informing manipulations (Megan Mole CC BY)

personal investigations

maison domino Architect Le Corbusier Year 1914 Location NA

The earliest example of flexible housing is the Maison Domino, designed by Le Corbusier. Open space is created through a modular structure and organized vertical circulation system. This design system allows for movement with open space, which equals freedom. Freedom of body movement is crucial for adaptability, as it enables the free will to make changes and adjustments based upon particular needs. However, complete autonomy and freedom will result in an imbalance of individual powers. Boundaries are enabled with a modular structure (you can only expand up so high and move out so far). Modular structures allow for freedom of movement at a government scale, where the overall hierarchy of space is bounded by the overall space of the site’s urban context and physical limits.

figure 21 hand drawing of Maison Domino

precedent studies

figure 22 2014, 1:1 reconstruction by Jürg Stauffer

figure 23 Maison Domino elevation

precedent studies

weissenhof estate Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s creation of the Weissenhof estate was Architect Ludwig Mies van der designed by multiple architects for multiple people and configurations of units. Overall, the residential development exhibited a radical Rohe international style during the 1920s and used functional living, clean Year geometry, repetition, and modular forms to create dwelling units 1927 (figure 24). Mies as an architect, controls the site’s appearance yet allows the housing units freedom when residents move into these units. Mies ceased to use ornamentation and color and standardized Location utility components such as windows, doors, and plumbing. Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany “In order to permit each one as much freedom as possible to execute his ideas, I have set neither guidelines nor given programmatic orientation.” - Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

figure 24 skeleton structure of Weissenhof Estate

precedent studies

figure 25 floor plans and perspective

figure 26 map of estate with contributing architects

precedent studies

casa de las flores Architect Secundino Zuazo Year 1931 Location Madrid, Spain

Casa de las Flores was designed in Spain as social housing increased in need during the early 20th century. The Casa de las Flores design depends on a strict set of rules that defines forms of units and the overall flexibility of use within domestic space. Arguing that the growing variety of user needs is increasing, Zuazo designed with rational viewpoints. He arranged rooms in series, in which rooms of similar size were granted independent access through a central corridor, allowing the rooms to be used and manipulated in numerous ways. Zuazo’s architecture is designed for multiple generations, for people using the rooms now and for those who will use them later. “Generations have used these dwellings along the years, thanks to the possibility of changing and permuting the use of the rooms, joining or separating them at their convenience..” - Agatangelo Soler Montellano

figure 27 perspective view of Casa de las Flores in Madrid, Spain 70 precedent studies

figure 28 multiplicity of indiviudal unit layouts

figure 29 plan showing various unit configurations

precedent studies

gifu kitagawa apartments Architect Sanaa Year 1998 Location Japan

Gifu Kitagawa Apartments was constructed as a collective housing typology, which arranged four free-standing blocks around communal public space. Access to the housing occurs along the northern facade, and living occurs on the southern facade to access sunlight. The levels (most double-height) are combined in various ways, which in total produce various forms of internal, domestic living within each dwelling unit. The northern facade (figure 30) displays a facade almost impossible to recognize unit from unit due to the careful configuration of these units (figure 31). Gifu Kitagawa Apartments represent a careful and considerable construction of residential units, taking into account how people live comfortably and personally within units.

figure 30 elevation view of Gifu Apartments

precedent studies

figure 31 construction document dislplaying various program arrangements

figure 32 plan showing various unit configurations

precedent studies

intergenerational center Architect Nadaaa Year 2000s Location Chicago, Illinois

Nadaaa’s Intergenerational Center focuses on creating interior and exterior dwelling environments that foster social interaction among different generations of living. The Intergenerational Center addresses different statistics of households and intertwines these different groups of people (young and elder living) together to merge interaction among both generations of living. As studied in data within Chapters 1 and 2, the multigenerational family as a household typology is increasing. The center addresses the changes that are happening in society among a family living within a dwelling and uses these typology changes to create environments to foster community, play, and communication among different generations of residents.

figure 33 floor plan displaying dwelling and public program 74 precedent studies

figure 34 exterior perspective

figure 35 perspective of multigenerational program

precedent studies

dragon court village Architect Eureka Year 2012 Location Aichi, Japan

The Dragon Court Village, designed by Eureka, exhibits the transformation of community architecture. Nine rental dwelling units were designed within the village, and each unit was designated two parking spots on the site. Additionally, the village responds to changing climates and traditional local cultures by providing covered outdoor spaces for various programs and events for the residents. (figure 36) represents the building after construction, and (figure 37) represents the building a few years after construction, in the midst of a weekend market event. (figure 38, 39, and 40) display these public spaces during the event, having different programs, events, and people around different spaces of the dwellings. Dragon Court Village offers a unique range of adaptable community programs for its residents while providing open, public space for neighbors visiting the village.

figure 36 Dragon Court Village after construction

figure 37 Dragon Court village weekend market; years after construction 76 precedent studies

figure 38 perspective of exterior program

figure 39 temporary market setup

figure 40 children playing under a shaded roof canopy precedent studies 77

songpa micro-housing Architect Ssd Architects Year 2014 Location Seoul, South Korea

With change and different lifestyles in consideration, Ssd Architects designed Songpa Housing to adapt to changes of residents, their lifestyles, and community events, all within a tight urban context in Seoul, South Korea. (figure 41 and 42) displays floor plans for the second floor where indiviudal unit are closed off at some times, but then at others the space is operable, allowing the five units to blend together as one gallery exhibit. Similary, (figure 43 and 44) display a micro-auditorium space where people relax and eat lunch during the day, but transforms into an entire auditorium space for live performances at night. Songpa’s MicroHousing enables tenants to use space flexibly, adapting individual programs to accommodate more extensive public programs that foster community engagement and living with neighbors.

figure 41 Individual units for residents based off two models

figure 42 Units and spaces opened up to allow for gallery exhibit 78 precedent studies

figure 43 micro-auditorium doubling as living room and cafe

figure 44 micro-auditorium live performance precedent studies 79

half house Architect Alejandro Aravena Year 2016 Location Constitución, Chile

Alejandro Aravena’s Half House built in Chile is based upon empty spaces left in half of the cavity of a square house (figure 45). This tactic allows tenants to build rooms and spaces they want even after Aravena completed the project. In (figure 46), I began to diagram patterns of sections for user adaptability. The diagram categorizes space in simplistic ways, using square blocks as forms that even the non-architect or builder could understand. These primary forms make adaptability more simplistic and encourage people to change their homes over time, ultimately giving them the freedom to make what they want of their own space. Aravena’s Half-House makes architecture and design more accessible to the everyday person and forms a participatory architecture for those that want more within their dwelling.

figure 45 houses before and after resident construction 80 precedent studies

figure 46 building blocks of half-house (Megan Mole CC BY)

precedent studies

flexible form parameters To understand how adaptation and functional changes occur within architecture, I wanted to understand the boundaries that contain these adaptations and the way cubes can be manipulated. By thinking of form as simple cubes, I investigated how three-dimensional shapes can be transformed in many ways when combined. Understanding flexible forms through coding (figure 47), I began to translate two-dimensional form to three-dimensional so that forms could be combined, pulled apart, separated, or put together in different ways. To test this, I linked a singular .5-inch by .5-inch cube (which could be scaled to 10 feet by 10 feet) with the definition of a singular space. For instance, a singular bedroom, a kitchen, or a balcony. Then, to make housing, we combine these cubes together (the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen) in order to make a singular dwelling for a user. Nevertheless, what happens when the combinations of cubes combine perfectly and imperfectly? (figure 48) shows different combinations of cubes attached, then vertically combined to create a perfect cube on the right (no gaps). It also shows the combinations of these cubes if they were twisted, rotated in specific ways, and the numerous outcomes derived from this testing. Using singular cubes as a parameter allows this change to occur, where pieces begin to come together in unique ways.

flexible form parameters

figure 47 form configurations tests (Megan Mole CC BY)

flexible form parameters

form analysis through model-making In a combination of hand-made cube models, I created prototypes for possible combinations of cubes that would make up an individual dwelling or public service space. Each of the 12 models derives from 4 individual combinations. In addition, eight of the 12 models are rotated or flipped in different directions to mimic different combinations of forms. When the four original forms are put together in a specific order, they create a perfect cube formation. Nevertheless, when one piece is rotated or turned in a different direction, the overall combination of the pieces yields unique shapes. These shapes begin to create voids and common areas of solids. Studying these models on a small scale can yield hundreds of combinations for the various prototypes of units. Different combinations will always yield different results, therefore deciding on the tenant is critical to the overall form of the building. One decision made by a singular can affect multiple blocks in different ways, whether it reveals a new block or hides an existing one.

flexible form parameters

figure 48 wooden cubes representing forms of units (Megan Mole CC BY)

flexible form parameters

verbal codes of flexible forms Understanding forms through manipulations defined by verbal code enables allow for boundaries of form manipulations (figure 49).

split ing,

taking seperating or

an exsisting form and apportioning into smaller

dividforms

deconstruct - reassembling a singular form into different forms, with different positioning and recreations of the same mass

expand

- pulling an exsisting form in a specfic direction, growing and elaborating upon the size of the form

shrink

- contracting, dimishing or lessening a form in size

join - taking two or more adjacent forms and fastening them to-

gether, binding and connecting forms possibly of different programs

flexible form parameters

split

deconstruct expand

shrink

join

figure 49 verbal codes dictating form

(Megan Mole CC BY)

flexible form parameters

program formulation catalog of program spaces A rich and complex program in a multi-family, urban housing project is imperative to ultimate user comfort and satisfaction— program gradients from the individual scale to the larger, public community scale (figure 50 and 52). At the individual scale, the program assesses dwellings and categorizes the program by the amount and type of people living in that space. The following gradient is the small community scale, representing a semi-private scale, where spaces are public to the community as a whole but private to just those living in the housing. The final gradient is the larger community scale, representing the semi-public scale, where spaces are public to the greater community. The residents have access to these spaces, but they are not entirely private, as the external network of Boston community members has access to these public spaces.

program

single

double

single

couples

families

laundry

bike storage

ﬁtness/gym

public gardens

playground

with pets

families

single parent

storage

allotment gardens

event space

tool shed

market

single parent

multigenerational

shared kitchen

garage

waste management

resturant

makerspace

roomates

extended family

shared kitchen

mailroom

meeting rooms

health clinic

cafe

multiple

co-living

figure 50 public housing programs (Megan Mole CC BY)

program formulation

pool

figure 51 household and form structure (Megan Mole CC BY)

figure 52 average square footage size of apartments (Megan Mole CC BY)

(figure

52) represents the average square footage of urban housing, based on the year built. For example, in 2016, the average size of a studio apartment was 504sqft, a one-bedroom apartment was 752sqft, and a two-bedroom apartment was 1,126 sqft.

Understanding and averaging these numbers are crucial to the overall development of my “building blocks” of form and how the program dictates the sizes in which these blocks will take up space.

program formulation

form combined with a catalog of program Combined parameters set by form, and the catalog of program spaces, selectable forms can be formulated into a comprehensive catalog combining these two aspects. The

sizing

each program space is dictated by and is organized through the minimum amount of space to be dictated to each program space.

≤ 1150sqft

≤ 750sqft

≤ 500sqft

(figure

53)

meeting rooms

gym

single dwelling

mailroom

couples

families

single parent

roomates

pool

wastemanagement

health clinic

cafe

market

resturant

multigenerational

extended family

co-living

storage

garage

individual

program formulation

bike storage

semi-private shared space

semi-public shared space

toolshed

laundry

event space

city-wide shared space

playgrou

shared kit

shed

undry

A single cube of space is dictated to a space of 500sqft or less, a double cube is dictated to a space of 750sqft or less, and a triple cube is dictated to a space of 1150sqft or less. Spaces starting from the smallest scale can be sized up, and spaces from the largest scale can be scaled down with ease based on the three scales of form.

figure 53 program catalog (Megan Mole CC BY)

playground

shared kitchen

yard

allotment gardens

pool

public gardens

t space

program forumulaiton

design test #1 assembly of households Regarding research upon the changing family typology in the United States, the assembly of household prototypes living in these units should be representative of this data. (figure 54) displays my catalog of households created based on the changing household data. Each household comprises the following data from below, which is pulled directly from my research and literature review.

“

there is a rise in labor force participation among mothers equaling four in ten female breadwinners

there is a normalization of divorce and its increasing rates in the 21st century there are increases in interracical marriage

increases in rights for LGBTQ parents and their marriages more multigenerational families

design test #1

“

figure 54 catelog of household types (Megan Mole CC BY)

design test #1

the working woman

the nomad

the student

the horticulturists

the familyman

the social butterﬂy

bedroom bathroom kitchen ofﬁce dining room backyard bedroom bedroom bathroom bathroom kitchen living room bedroom bathroom kitchen living room flexible space bedroom bedroom bathroom bathroom kitchen dining room living room backyard porch flexible space bedroom bedroom bedroom bathroom bathroom kitchen dining room living room flexible space backyard bedroom bedroom bedroom bathroom bathroom living room dining room kitchen ofﬁce bedroom bathroom kitchen backyard flexible space

man’s best friend

the multigenerational

the newlyweds 94

design test #1

bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom bathroom bathroom bathroom kitchen dining room living room flexible space porch backyard bedroom bedroom bathroom bathroom kitchen dining room living room ofﬁce

figure 55 household and program analysis (Megan Mole CC BY)

comprehending programs Alongside each prototype housing unit accompanies the need for people to have a say in what programs they think suit their lifestyles the best. (figure 55) illustrates the different categorizes of program according to the user. The diagram then filters each program type into a larger bubble of progam. The larger the scale of the bubble, the more that each household uses that specific program type and vise-versa. This method of categorization aids in understanding which programs are most crucial to people when they have the opportunities to pick their desired programs. Programs can continued to be reduced to a simple set in order to provide residents with the most adaptable variety of program.

design test #1

design test #2 from program to plan After understanding and testing methods for which people choose and incorporate programs into their ideal unit of living, (figure 56) illustrates logical ways in which these programs are arranged. Each unit is arranged within a grid, interlocked with a solid 4x4 grid in the middle designated for plumbing programs only (bathroom, kitchen, or other flexible space that require these utilities). By doing so, logical and architectural parameters of space and organization are set to enable continuity among each unit as a whole. This method minimizes the complete autonomy of the resident but gives them a foundation to work off, as all residents might not be architects and may not have previous experience with orchestrating their unit.

figure 56 unit arrangements (Megan Mole CC BY)

design test #2

(figure 57) takes these gridded units and begins to combine them

in various ways in order to understand the organizations of units when amalgamated. Each of the three configurations demonstrates the amalgamation of the nine units represented in (figure 57), but according to placement, result is different combinations of form. Some of these results stay within the gridded boundary, but others resist the boundary and exceed its limits, overlapping outside the grid.

figure 57 almagation of units (Megan Mole CC BY)

design test #2

design test #3 situating residential programs As flexible forms dictate this adaptable housing project’s overall body and shape, setting parameters to correspond form type is essential. When understanding the overall square footage of all three sites and studying the average square footage of multifamily housing, the 10’ x 10’ cube serves as the control for all cubes. Each manipulation done to a room is based upon the control cube. (Figure 58) illustrates the various manipulations done to forms to allow them to fit better into various programs. For instance, a small program such as a bathroom or closet does not need nearly as much space like a kitchen or bedroom. Potentially, the user may value a bathroom or closet more, and these programs may be larger than the kitchen or bedroom. Joining, expanding, shrinking, and splitting forms allow maximum flexibility of different programs for different people.

figure 58 flexible exterior surface treatments (Megan Mole CC BY)

design test #3

split

deconstruct expand

shrink

join

figure 59 exterior surface treatments based on user (Megan Mole CC BY)

design test #3

design test #4 compact interior perspectives In order to understand how residents occupy interior spaces, I did a series of hand sketches that set up spaces unique to their users. Focusing on compact floor plans using the 10ftx10ftx8ft cube, the sketches address compact spaces while still allowing resident modification and adaptation. Working with compact square footage seems manageable at first when constructing floor plans but seems much more compact when working with furniture and people within the perspectives. This series of perspectives led me to understand how people occupy smaller or more compact spaces and made me more aware of the amount of space necessary for programs. For instance, a prefabricated entry module was too small of a program to fit into a 100sqft space, but a living room was too big to fit. Through using this grid, my studies of flexible forms aided in finding proper sizings for all my designed programs.

100 design test #4

figure 60 hand drawn perspectives

(Megan Mole CC BY)

design test #4 101

design test #5 bringing vertical housing to horizontal surfaces Initially focusing my housing on a vertical axis, the parking garage influenced the process of bringing housing to horizontal surfaces. As vertical housing fits between Boston’s prominent skyscrapers and triple-decker typologies, horizontal housing offers less density but can overtake underutilized surfaces in the city to maximize affordability. Learning more about housing on horizontal surfaces (mimicking suburban housing neighborhood layouts) allowed me to create a new densification and typology that combines city living with more affordable and environmental suburban living.

figure 61 collaged sections

102 design test #5

(Megan Mole CC BY)

design test #5 103

figure 62 mix of sectional and plan view describing spatial relationship of tenants’ units (Megan Mole CC BY)

104 analytique

analytique 1 an organization of presets Understanding participatory living is considering all possible personalizations of units with housing. With my analytique, I found it necessary to categorize my methods for making flexible forms by constructing those program methods onto sites. My research proves that the typical family typology is changing in the United States; therefore, all family types should be represented within the narratives of people I include to live in these housing units. The user program follows the parameters of choosable programs set by the designer. These programs can even be minimized even more to give people more freedom of what they want to make of a space. Overall, the analytique depicts how individual units can become connected, where white lines redefine personal boundaries of units and combine spaces based on similar program.

analytique 105

artifact model configuring three-dimensions My artifact model analyzes one of my three site selections, ultimately testing forms of mass based on units on the “standard” or medium-sized site. Each indiviudal unit (figure 64) represents those of the family types from design test #3. When evaluating each piece individually, it is clear how each unit is comprised (labels of programs). However, when these units are combined into the site model, blocks and labels begin to blend with one another, making it difficult to decipher the difference between the individuality of a unit versus the wholeness of the structure itself. Pieces can be taken out and put back in with two tested methods; stacking (figure 65) and through a “tetris” configuration where pieces fit into one another (figure 67). This results in different horizontal and vertical scales despite having the same amount of units in each model. Overall, my method allows for flexibility for people to build what they want but allows boundaries between the architect and the user. However, the model does not reference the boundary between the architecture and the site. What is the footprint of pieces? Do the pieces have horizontal boundaries beyond the street or neighboring buildings? Do the pieces have vertical boundaries, or do they continue to build upright?

figure 63 elevation of site programs (Megan Mole CC BY)

106 artifact model

figure 64 protoype of units (Megan Mole CC BY)

artifact model 107

figure 65 units “stacked” equaling more porosity (Megan Mole CC BY)

figure 66 units fit ogether in “tetris” equaling less porosity (Megan Mole CC BY)

108 artifact model

endnotes After multiple series of design tests based upon in-depth research and precedent studies on adaptable architecture, I have concluded that participatory architecture through parameters of the form allows for a flexible, urban architecture. Considering the outcomes and future of my project, I believe it will be most successful when considering methods of designing for site parameters, circulation and light, and program specifics. Expanding and narrowing these topics will allow me to create a successful and flexible urban housing proposal for the residents of Boston and beyond.

figure 67 notes from gallery review (Megan Mole CC BY)

endnotes 109

110

04 Outcomes

prefabricated modules participatory units guest street garage as test site garage axonometrics sections renders

111

dio stu sqft 0 107,700 1 $

full sqft 0 156,550 2 $

module 1a

module 2a

g livin sqft 0 156,550 $2

module 1c

figure 68 prefabricated modules (Megan Mole CC BY)

112 prefabricated modules

f [outdoor]

rd rtya t u co sqf 0 303,100 $5

module 1f

n he kitc sqft 0 107,700 1 $

d [eating]

c [living]

My creation of 15 prefabricated modules is based upon compact aggregations of space and furniture to provide highly affordable units. As all units feature built-in furniture systems, they increase affordability for users. Each module is listed under seven subcategories (sleep, bath, living, eating, entry, outdoor, and circulation). All prefabricated modules are built with CLT construction, and their timber material is exposed on the exterior and interiors of the units. These units join in unique configurations that shape and form affordable living units. In addition, these modules are customizable, offering different opportunities for customization based on the residents and their budgets.

a [sleep]

prefabricated modules

module 1

e largft q 9s ,59 $1

odule 2f

b [bath]

module 3a ing din sqft 0 107,700 $1

module 2d

all sm ft 6sq,062 $1

module 3f

rd rtya u o c qft s 50,850 8 $

module 4f

full qft s 50,850 8 $

module 1b

module 2b

ry nd lau qft s 25,425 4 $

ro ud m / try en qft s 25,425 $4

module 2e

module 1e

g [circulation]

f hal qft s 5 5 2 ,42 $4

e [entry]

n twi sqft 5 122,125 $2

irs sta qft s 50,850 8 $

module 1g prefabricated modules 113

participatory units The construction of my participatory units are based on various configurations of the previous modules. The units currently consist of studio, one-bed, and two-bed apartments. Each unit is based on a 900-square-foot grid that allows the units to be participatory yet equally replicable across the site. Each unit prototype is built on a “base” that calculates the minimum amount of program, square footage, and cost of liveable apartments. Different modules of the program can be replaced, added, or subtracted within the floor plan grid to allow for extensive options for affordability based on the users of the unit. If users desire more affordable units, they can opt to subtract unnecessary elements of the program for them. Users who demand access to more programs have the opportunity to add various modules of their choice to their unit. All versions of units are affordable, though, and offer opportunities for flexibility within the arrangement of each unit on site. figure 69 participatory units axons (Megan Mole CC BY)

studio

1 bed

2 bed

114 participatory units

figure 70 studio prototype

(Megan Mole CC BY)

studio prototype cost per sqft $177 total base sqft 350 total base cost $61,950

module 2d + $17,700 “dining room”

* for prefabrication

land cost per sqft $48 total land sqft 600 total land cost $28,800 total base cost $90,750

module 1c + $26,550 “living room”

participatory units 115

one bedroom prototype cost per sqft $177 total base sqft 600 total base cost $106,950

module 1b + $22,125 “twin bedroom”

* for prefabrication

land cost per sqft $48 total land sqft 750 total land cost $36,000 total base cost $142,950 module 1c + $26,550 “living room”

figure 71 one bedroom prototype (Megan Mole CC BY)

116 participatory units

2 bedroom prototype cost per sqft $177 total base sqft 900 total base cost $159,300

module 1b + $22,125 “twin bedroom”

* for prefabrication

land cost per sqft $48 total land sqft 900 total land cost $43,200 total base cost $202,500

module 1b + $22,125 “twin bedroom”

module 2a - $4,425 “half bath”

figure 72 two bedroom prototype (Megan Mole CC BY)

participatory units 117

guest street garage as test site

figure 73 guest street garage

(Megan Mole CC BY)

New Balance Guest Street

Harvey Steel Roa

118 guest street garage as test site

figure 74 guest street garage top floor

(Megan Mole CC BY)

Guest Street garage serves the first of many sites on which my housing resides. For affordability reasons, Guest Street garage serves as an exceedingly inexpensive option for building on new “land.” As the top of Guest Street garage is significantly underutilized throughout the majority of the day, housing can overtake its top story, utilizing its space in affordable ways for Boston’s residents. Guest street serves as one example parking garage site of how housing can inhabit itself on top of existing and underutilized structures in Boston. It questions how instead of building expensively on new land, we can build on other existing surfaces in the city. The garage additionally consists of six stories, where the New Balance Fitness Club occupies the ground floor. With this club and cars already filling in the parking garage structures, it is incredibly feasible that the top surfaces of these garages be filled with housing when they are highly underutilized.

guest street garage as test site 119

axonometrics

ty ni

bors & comm h g u ei

courtyards

120 axonometrics

figure 75 guest street garage axonometric

(Megan Mole CC BY)

y & grow pla

access city

privacy

axonometrics 121

figure 76 site approach (Megan Mole CC BY)

figure 77 site aggregation (Megan Mole CC BY)

studio 1 bed 2 bed

122 axonometrics

The site approach for building housing on Guest Street garage (figure 76) included the creation of parameters that would eventually be applied to all parking garage sites in Boston. The approach creates housing columns with 10-foot gaps in-between, where these gaps alternate between being circulation space for users or shared yard space. These programs depend upon where the entry modules are along the housing column. Different site dimensions will result in either shorter or longer housing columns and the number of rows that will adequately fit on the site given their dimensions. Shared yard spaces also offer greenery opportunities on the roof surface of these parking garages. These yards, composed of different types of trees, shrubs, flowers, other vegetation, grass, and pathways, work to create intimate and shared communities between neighbors. These green spaces are separate from the city and are only accessible by the housing tenants. The garages’ site aggregation (figure 77) is dependent upon the tenants moving into these units. Different aggregations are bound to be formed on-site based on household sizes, affordability restraints, and personal needs. Although housing will only be built once on these sites, there are infinite opportunities for the number of aggregations across the site. Additionally, as units work in participatory manners, different aggregations upon unit forms take place on-site.

axonometrics 123

figure 78 site circulation (Megan Mole CC BY)

figure 79 future phasing (Megan Mole CC BY)

parking

ph ph ase 1 as e2

124 axonometrics

Site circulation (figure 78) works to connect existing units of infrastructure from the parking garage and connect them to the units. With two sets of elevators on either end of the site, these are accessible means of circulation from the ground floor to the roof surface of the garage. Additionally, there are three total staircases within the existing circulation cores, with two of them being fire staircases for exit and entrance to these communities. Finally, pathways create walkways that lead to entry columns and units throughout the site. Future phasing is also estimated to take place on the Guest Street garage. (Figure 79) illustrates how expansion could occur in phases underneath the surface of the parking garage. The first phase of construction would happen on the top layer of the garage, and then future expansions could fill in the gaps below. Of course, these secondary phases of expansion would require access to light, so aggregations of units on different floors may differ from the original parameters of site intervention. Ways in which units surround the perimeter of the floors for access to light or combine as twostory structures with other units could be ways in which lighting is addressed within the future phasing of these housing typologies.

axonometrics 125

figure 80 garage and housing section (Megan Mole CC BY)

126 sections

These sections of Guest Street garage illustrate how housing would sit on the existing structure. Units would be elevated four feet off ground level on the top floor, and access to units would be via staircases. The top concrete surface of the garage would be filled with a thin layer of path for circulation, and small patches of grass would exist in specific locations.

sections 127

In correspondence to its surroundings, the overall site section of the garage shows that single-story housing in this area works to match the existing density of its existing environment. All surrounding buildings exist at the same height as the garage and its new housing, therefore not causing limitations for access to light on this site. Additionally, the site has access to streetways on all four sides, allowing construction by a single, temporary, moveable crane to build units wherever they aggregate on site. Prefabricated modules of a maximum 10ftx15ft dimension allow themselves to be transported easily by truck to the site. On the garage’s interior, circulation allows the tenant to drive their car to the fifth floor of the garage, park, and walk or take the elevator one story up to their unit (about one minute of travel from their car). Tenants without cars have access to the T and nearby bus stop and would travel six stories from the ground floor to the garage’s roof to access their unit.

128 sections

figure 81 site section

(Megan Mole CC BY)

sections 129

figure 82 Boston Harbor garage render (Megan Mole CC BY)

As this new typology for housing is tested primarily on one site, it is designed to be deployed on multiple sites; set with basic parameters that allow it to be replicable on different sites easily. Boston Harbor garage (Figure 82) for instance, is a garage with similar dimensions to the Guest Street garage, therefore allowing the same exact aggregation and amount of units to be replicated on site. Farnsworth Street garage (Figure 83) is smaller, though, allowing only 12 units on-site instead of the 16 on Guest Street and Boston Harbor. In addition, the site strategies for these units allow the housing to take over multiple parts of the city where housing is needed and where underutilized parking exists. Not only does this typology produce an easy housing model to be replicated across the city, but it also offers affordable options for living in many places across the city.

figure 83 Farnsworth Street garage render (Megan Mole CC BY)

130 renders

renders 131

132 renders

figure 84 exterior shared yard render (Megan Mole CC BY)

renders 133

figure 85 interior studio render (Megan Mole CC BY)

134 renders

renders 135

136

05 Critical Reflection

thesis defense reflection

137

thesis defense

figure 86 theis review, April 19, 2022 (Peter Mole CC BY)

138 thesis defense

Following my presentation at the final thesis review, feedback from the guest critics allowed me a new understanding of my typology of housing; expansion and accessibility. Critics emphasized the importance of accessibility and how these units may be accessible to the demographic of users who seek affordable housing but are not physically accessible to users requiring different means of access to their units. For example, could a new module be done for circulation based on a ramp that could work to replace the stair module? On the other hand, does the whole site begin to slope and change typography, allowing accessibility to everyone without a module? Additionally, the idea of expansion came upon following my ideas of future phasing within the project. It was mentioned that although the site aggregations work well on the top floor of the parking garage, they would not work on the garage’s lower levels. Critics suggested facing the units along the garage’s perimeter, allowing every unit access to light and almost transforming them into all penthouse units with the interior core of the garage following a “donut” typology and allowing parking in the dark center cores. Alternatively, is every level a donut shape, allowing a vertical tunnel, shining light from the top and dispersing it to the bottom of the garage, where the units begin to become multiple stories, building off one another from floor to floor. Maybe the units are not based on a prefabricated modular system, and paneled assemblies become present instead where they can match varying stories of each floor of the garage. This feedback increased my understanding of my project and its possibilities and capabilities to become a flexible and participatory system that molds itself to fit the forms of all of Boston’s parking garages, all to provide an alternative affordable housing system. In addition, the conversation during the thesis review was critical to my understanding of critical next steps I would take with this thesis or provide to others to use as ideas for ways to create a new and affordable typology for housing in cities.

thesis defense 139

reflection If I were to revisit my thesis in the future, I would primarily explore the expansion of the units on multiple floors of parking garages. As my typology works to create a community-driven environment on the top floor, it does not work to create those same environments on other floors. It leads me to question if this typology is only for parking garages and underutilized spaces or if it could work on any single and underutilized surface in the city. If the parking garage structure were to ultimately be taken over by housing (where I think the thesis was ultimately driving me), I would work to explore new aggregations to test ways that housing and overtake these garages affordably and efficiently. I have previously tested “donut” aggregations on-site but landed on a grid of columned units instead, which was evident in my final proposal. I am inquisitive about testing the donut configuration on all garage floors and how those configurations differ from my own. I believe doing this may challenge my current configuration of units, and it may lead to a redevelopment of my modules and their arrangements to become units. The donut arrangement also challenges affordability. Could the units be too nice (have too good of views and access to parking and surrounding amenities)? Would this jeopardize the idea of affordability and, in the future, become units that follow the current market of Boston housing? These are ideas that I am incredibly interested in further testing, and some may not be genuinely answered unless modeled, built, and deployed throughout the city.

140 reflection

If my ideas of affordable housing were to be pursued in the future, I would suggest blending my work with others of more precise expertise. Working with others outside my major and with more significant expertise in finance, structures, and systems, for instance, may determine the feasibility of a project at this scale that is to be deployed across the city. After many design tests, I believe the ultimate review showcased the best version of my project, and I would enjoy a continuation of design tests to be developed from my thesis (referencing units and their site aggregations). Additionally, incorporating sustainable systems would be essential to the overall success of this project. Having net zero carbon and affordable housing deployments amongst the city would result in a successful project, in my view. Incorporating more passive elements and modeling energy on these systems and how they interact with their environments is essential and would be a further design test. I believe my work and other affordable housing deployments in the city work to combat the inequality of affordable living in the city and work to create a more humane and affordable way to live in cities.

reflection 141

bibliography Altaş, Nur Esin, and Ahsen Özsoy. “Spatial adaptability and flexibility as parameters of user satisfaction for quality housing.” Building and environment 33, no. 5 (1998): 315-323.

Moffatt, Sebastian, and Peter Russell. “Assessing the adaptability of buildings.” IEA Annex 31 (2001).

Beisi, Jia. “Adaptable housing or adaptable people.” Architecture & Behaviour Swiss Federal Institute of Technology 11 (1995): 139-162.

Montellano, Agatangelo Soler. “Housing flexibility by spatial indeterminacy: The case of the Casa de las Flores in Madrid.” ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 9, no. 2 (2015): 4.

Chamie, Joseph, and Barry Mirkin. “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon.” Population and Development Review 37, no. 3 (2011).

Morris, Earl W., and Mary Winter. “A Theory of Family Housing Adjustment.”Journal of Marriage and Family 37, no. 1 (1975): 79–88.

Evason, Nina. “American Culture: Gender Roles”. (2016).

Pew Research Center. “Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed minds and changing demographics”. (2013).

Fawcett, William. “Investing in flexibility: The lifecycle options approach.”Projections 10 (2011): 13-29. Garip, Filiz. “WHY DO PEOPLE MIGRATE?: Identifying Diverse Mechanisms of Migration.” On the Move: Changing Mechanisms of MexicoU.S. Migration, 10–38. Princeton University Press, 2017. Glass, Ruth. “Social Determinants of Housing Design.” Official Architecture and Planning 28, no. 5 (1965): 633–35. Heathcott, Joseph. “‘In the Nature of a Clinic’: The Design of Early Public Housing in St. Louis.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 70, no. 1 (2011): 82–103. James III, Russell N. “Multifamily housing characteristics and tenant satisfaction.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21, no. 6 (2007): 472-480. Lyster, Clare, and Judith K. De Jong. “Housing Urbanism.” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 65, no. 1 (2011): 7–12.

142 bibliography

Pew Research Center. “The American Family Today”. (2015). 1-103. Plaut, Pnina, and Stephen Plaut. “Decisions to Renovate and to Move.”Journal of Real Estate Research 32, no. 4 (2010): 461- 484. Stankard, Mark. “Re-Covering Mies van der Rohe’s Weissenhof: The Ultimate Surface.” ACSA International Conference (1998): 267-271.

143

image references figure 01 17 figure 11 50 Molé, Megan. “Current affordability of Boston “The State of the Nation’s Housing 2021.” The State Housing”. April 2022. of the Nation’s Housing 2021 | Joint Center for Housing Studies. Accessed April figure 02 19 21, 2022.https:www.jchs.harvard. Mayer, Beth Ann. “The Changing Face of the edustatenations-housing-2021. American Family.” Parents, August 2020. https://www.parents.com/. figure 12 51 Goodman, Lorie & Zhu, Jun. “By 2040, the US Will figure 03 20 Experience Modest Homeownership Smith, Jennifer. “Data illustrate a changing growing Declines.”Urban Institute, January 21, city”. February 2019. https://www.dotnews. 2021. https://www.urban. com/2019/data-illustrate-growing-city org/urban-wire/2040-us-will- experience-modest-homeownership-declinesfigure 04 32 black-households-impact-will-be-dramatic. Heathcott, Joseph. “‘In the Nature of a Clinic’: The Design of Early Public Housing in figure 13 51 St. Louis.” Journal of the Society of Molé, Megan. “Increasing sale prices of U.S. Architectural Historians 70, no. 1 (2011): homes”. October 2021. 82–103. figure 14 52 “Current housing google search”. search”. figure 05 34 Molé, Megan. “Current October 2021. Montellano, Agatangelo Soler. “Housing flexibility by spatial indeterminacy: figure 15 53 The case of the Casa de las Flores Molé, Megan. “Replacing “Replacing the weight of cars with in Madrid.” ArchNet-IJAR: International prefabricated modules”. modules”. April 2022. Journal of Architectural Research 9, no. 2 (2015): 4. figure 16 53 Molé, Megan. “Amount of housing that can fit on figure 06 36 parking garages”. April 2022. 2022. “Weissenhofsiedlung.” Fostinum. Accessed April 21, 2022. https://www.fostinum.org/ figure 17 53 weissenhofsiedlung.html. Molé, Megan. “Amount of new units and people to be housed affordably”. April 2022. 2022. figure 07 45 Molé, Megan. “Testing form scales for site”. figure 18 60 December 2021. “Terrace House perspective.” NL Architects. Accessed April 22, 2022. http://www. figure 08 46 nlarchitects.nl/slideshow/362/. Molé, Megan. “Parking “Parking structures across Boston”. Boston ”. April 2022. figure 19 61 figure 09 46 Molé, Megan. “Terrace House form critique of flexibility”. September 2021. Molé, Megan. “Comparing “Comparing building on land vs. Terrace House plan parking garage”. garage”. April 2022. “Terrace House floor plan.” NL Architects. Accessed April 22, 2022. http://www. figure 10 49 nlarchitects.nl/slideshow/362/. Molé, Megan. “Portrait “Portrait of average Boston homeowner”. homeowner ”. October 2021. figure 20 61 Molé, Megan. “Flexible forms through codes informing manipulations”. September 2021.

144 image references

figure 21 62 figure 29 67 Bontjes van Beek, Valentin. “One-to-one Dom-Ino”. “Plan showing various unit configurations”. Accessed April 22, 2022.https:// Montellano, Agatangelo Soler.“Housing afasiaarchzine.com/2014/06/le-corbusier/ flexibility by spatial indeterminacy: The case of the Casa de las Flores in Madrid.” figure 22 63 ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Bontjes van Beek, Valentin. “One-to-one Dom-Ino”. Architectural Research 9, no. 2 (2015). Accessed April 22, 2022.https:// afasiaarchzine.com/2014/06/le-corbusier/ figure 30 68 Bernadó, Jordi, Sha, Shinkenchiku, and figure 23 63 Nakagawa, Nobuki. “Elevation view of Hayes, Luke. “Maison Dom-Ino Reconstruction”. Gifu Apartments”.Accessed April 22, 2022. Accessed April 22, 2022.https:// 2022.https:// https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/edificioafasiaarchzine.com/2014/06/le-corbusier/ de-apartamentos-gifu-kitagata-gifu-3 figure 24 64 figure 31 69 “Weissenhof perspective”. Accessed April Bernadó, Jordi, Sha, Shinkenchiku, and Nakagawa, 22, 2022. http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/ Nobuki. “construction document displaying laserdisk/0220/22084.JPG various program arrangements”. Accessed April 22, 2022. https://arquitecturaviva.com/ figure 25 65 works/edificio-de-apartamentos-gifu-kitagata“Floor plans and perspective”.Accessed April 22, gifu-3 2022. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/f0/10/ e9f010ddeb009f1e8443deacdd4f3e95.png figure 32 69 Bernadó, Jordi, Sha, Shinkenchiku, and Nakagawa, figure 26 65 Nobuki. “plan showing various unit “Map of Weissenhof estate with the contributing configurations”. Accessed April 22, 2022. architects”. Accessed April 22, 2022. https:// https://arquitecturaviva.com/ www.designboom.com/ works/edificio-de-apartamentos-gifu-kitagataarchitecture/weissenhof-estate-mies-van-dergifu-3 rohe-le-corbusier-08-05-2021/ figure 33 70 figure 27 66 “Floor plan displaying dwellings and public program”. “Perspective view of Casa de las Flores in Madrid, Accessed April 22, 2022. https://www.nadaaa. Spain”. Montellano, Agatangelo com/portfolio/intergenerational-center/ Soler.“Housing flexibility by spatial indeterminacy: The case of the Casa de las figure 34 71 Flores in Madrid.” ArchNet-IJAR: International “Exterior perspective”. Accessed April 22, 2022. Journal of Architectural Research 9, no. 2 https://www.nadaaa.com/portfolio/ (2015). intergenerational-center/ figure 28 67 “Multiplicity of individual unit layouts”. Montellano, Agatangelo Soler.“Housing flexibility by spatial indeterminacy: The case of the Casa de las Flores in Madrid.” ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 9, no. 2 (2015).

figure 35 71 “Perspective of multigenerational program”. Accessed April 22, 2022. https://www.nadaaa. com/portfolio/intergenerational-center/ figure 36 72 Hideki, Ookura. “Dragon Court Village after construction”. Accessed April 22, 2022. https://www.nadaaa.com/portfolio/ intergenerational-center/

image references 145

figure 37 72 figure 46 77 Hideki, Ookura. “Dragon Court Village weekend Molé, Megan. “Building blocks of half-house”. market; years after construction”. Accessed September 2021. April 22, 2022.https://www.nadaaa. Half-House Axon com/portfolio/ intergenerational-center/ “Villa Verde Housing / ELEMENTAL” 13 Nov 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 22 Apr 2022. figure 38 73 https://www.archdaily.com/447381/villa- Hideki, Ookura. “Perspective of exterior program”. verde-housing-elemental. Accessed April 22, 2022.https://www.nadaaa. com/portfolio/ intergenerational-center/ figure 47 79 Molé, Megan. “Form configurations tests”. figure 39 73 November 2021. Hideki, Ookura. “Temporary market setup”. Accessed April 22, 2022.https://www.nadaaa. com/portfolio/ intergenerational-center/ figure 48 81 Molé, Megan. “Wooden cubes representing forms of figure 40 73 units”. October 2021. Hideki, Ookura. “Children playing under a shaded roof canopy”. Accessed April 22, 2022. figure 49 83 https://www.nadaaa.com/portfolio/ Molé, Megan. “Verbal codes dictating code”. intergenerational-center/ September 2021. figure 41 74 figure 50 84 “Individual units for residents based off two models”. Molé, Megan. “Public housing programs”. Accessed April 22, 2022. http://www. September 2021. ssdarchitecture.com/works/residential/ songpa-micro-housing/ figure 51 85 Molé, Megan. “Household and form structure”. figure 42 74 September 2021. “Units and spaces opened up to allow for gallery exhibit”.Accessed exhibit”. Accessed April 22, 2022. http://www. figure 52 85 ssdarchitecture.com/works/residential/ Molé, Megan. “Average square footage size of songpa-micro-housing/ apartments”. September 2021. figure 43 75 “Micro-auditorium doubling as living room and cafe”. Accessed April 22, 2022. http://www. ssdarchitecture.com/works/residential/ songpa-micro-housing/

figure 53 87 Molé, Megan. “Program catalog”. September 2021. figure 54 89 Molé, Megan. “Catalog of household types”. November 2021.

figure 44 75 “Micro-auditorium live performance”. figure 55 90 Accessed April 22, 2022. http://www. Molé, Megan. “Household and program analysis”. ssdarchitecture.com/works/residential/ November 2021. songpa-micro-housing/ figure 56 92 figure 45 76 Molé, Megan. “Unit arrangements”. November 2021. Elemental “Villa Verde Housing”. Accessed April 22, 2022. https://www.theguardian. figure 57 93 com/artanddesign/2016/apr/10/architect- Molé, Megan. “Almagation of units”. November 2021. alejandro-aravena-pritzker-prize-elemental- housing-iquique-constitucion-tsunami- figure 58 94 defences.. defences Molé, Megan. “Flexible exterior surface treatments”. January 2022.

146 image references

figure 59 95 figure 74 115 Molé, Megan. “Exterior surface treatments based on Molé, Megan. “Guest street garage top floor”. user”. January 2022. March 2022. figure 60 97 figure 75 117 Molé, Megan. “Hand drawn perspectives”. February Molé, Megan. “Guest street garage axonometric”. 2022. April 2022. figure 61 98 figure 76 Molé, Megan. “Collaged Sections”. February 2022. Molé, Megan. “Site approach”. April 2022.

118

figure 62 100 figure 77 Molé, Megan. “Mix of sectional and plan view Molé, Megan. “Site agregations”. April 2022. describing spatial relationship of tenant’s units”. December 2021. figure 78 Molé, Megan. “Site circulation”. April 2022. figure 63 102 Molé, Megan. “Elevation of site programs”. figure 79 December 2021. Molé, Megan. “Future phasing”. April 2022.

118 120 120

figure 64 103 figure 80 122 Molé, Megan. “Prototype of units”. December 2021. Molé, Megan. “Garage and housing section”. April 2022. figure 65 104 Molé, Megan. “Units ‘stacked’ equaling more figure 81 125 porosity”. December 2021. Molé, Megan. “Site section”. April 2022. figure 66 104 figure 82 126 Molé, Megan. “Units fit together in ‘tetris’ equaling Molé, Megan. “Boston Harbor garage render”. April less porosity”. December 2021. 2022. figure 67 105 figure 83 126 Molé, Megan. “Notes from gallery review”. Molé, Megan. “Farnsworth Street garage render”. December 2021. April 2022. figure 68 108 figure 84 129 Molé, Megan. “Prefabricated modules”. Molé, Megan. “Exterior shared yard render”. April 2022. April 2022. figure 69 110 figure 85 130 Molé, Megan. “Participatory units axon”. April 2022. Molé, Megan. “Interior studio render”.April 2022. figure 70 Molé, Megan. “Studio prototype”. April 2022.

111 figure 86 Molé, Megan. “Thesis review”.April 2022.

136

figure 71 112 Molé, Megan. “One bedroom prototype”. April 2022. figure 72 113 Molé, Megan. “Two bedroom prototype”. April 2022. figure 73 114 Molé, Megan. “Guest street garage”. April 2022.

image references 147