MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues
Challenges of contemporary housing Contemporary Architectural Issues Final paper - Individual assignment Author: Miguel Peña Menudo Professor: Jordi Oliveras h 16t December 2021, Barcelona
Abstract. In a society that is more flexible than ever, in which the fundamentals of inhabiting inherited from the modern movement of the last century have become obsolete, this paper seeks to question the challenges of contemporary inhabiting in which the processes of diversity in terms of family and extra-family units as well as new forms of inhabiting and collective coexistence are making their way, and at the same time are constrained by rigid architectural forms that do not accommodate them, added to the proliferation of the intrusion of productive work in the domestic space thanks to this global and decentralised society accentuated by the COVID-19 crisis, is the starting point in which architects must be active agents in the change of paradigms to accommodate all these processes that are already taking place, bearing in mind domestic flexibility in architectural terms as a backdrop against which the foundations of inhabiting must be rethought. Keyword: Contemporary housing, social flexibility, architectural flexibility, domestic productivity, modern inhabiting
1
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues Introduction
the existing relationship between housing and the individual needs to be remodeled as it is outdated in many respects.
There is a lot of literature written about housing and the basic concepts of the fundamentals of inhabiting. In the first half of the 20th century, after the Second World War, CIAMs were carried out with the aim of solving the problems caused by the new industrial society, focusing on the definition of a new modern city based on machines and a new type of housing.
Today we architects are aware of these changes, and we must respond coherently to them, reformulating the perceptions of the fundamentals of living inherited from the past in order to find the solutions that best adapt to the different lifestyles that occur today.
“Architecture must approach engineering without renouncing emotion. “ - (Le Corbusier 1978)
We are, therefore, faced with the challenge of creating contemporary housing in which it has to be rethought from a critical perspective taking on account the flexibility of family units, the introduction of new commercial and work methods at home or the new ways of inhabiting.
As a result of these encounters, the masters of the modern movement began to focus on domestic plans with housing and lifestyle as one of their strongholds when proposing and developing their hypotheses.
As antecedents and inside a theoretical frame previous to shelling out the casuistry that occupies us, the architect Peter Rowe reflects in one of his writings on the house of the following form: “as far as the domestic one is concerned, it is an architecture that is always so present that it is almost not perceived with the necessary difference [...] its constant presence obviates its reflection, and its sources are not investigated” (Rowe, P. G., & Kan, H. Y. 2014, 32)
In this way, Le Corbusier referred to the new house of his time as a living machine, adapting it to the industrial revolution that had been changing the world since the beginning of the 20th century. Subsequently, TeamX tried to break with CIAM, reflecting and defending in its proposals the problems in contemporary debates and the housing relationship between families and producers, such as the limits between the public and the private, the individual and the family. The collective space begins to mediate the relationship between the subject and the community or with the outside space.(Garcia Sotos 2019, 13)
The house is, without a doubt, one of the main elements in the field of architecture, and at the same time, the architectural space most used by people who, although they are not part of the theoretical and critical framework in which it develops, believe in possessing the knowledge just because their life is
They are a proposal to experiment outside the housing unit, they look for a unity above the family environment and focus their interest on the community. After that, successive reflections and changes of paradigms have given rise to the reflection on housing throughout time until today. The domestic program, therefore, has been mutating and adapting to new changes and needs of the time. The social, political and economic changes of the last decades have produced different types of residents. These changes have brought new types of families, family relationships and lifestyles and work, so that
Figure 1. “What is a house?” - Eames Office 2
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues located in the familiar space.
Social flexibility - Architectural flexibility
But, in fact, the house is a complex reality, which is the result of the intersection of thoughts, involving both those who think about it and those who live in it.
“The glove is shaped to accommodate each finger, and the gloves are sized according to size. The mitten limits the movement of the hand to grip, but leaves room inside for the fingers to move and can fit a wide range of hand sizes. Shouldn’t buildings be designed as mittens, rather than gloves, in order to solve generic definitions of function rather than specific ones? In a building-glove, some of the program elements today may work less well, but it is also likely that these will change before the building is even completed. In many projects, sacrificing adherence to some specifications of the current program may be even better for the flexibility it may offer in the future” (Venturi and Scott Brown 2004)
On the one hand, people must intuitively feel a way of life, which is materialized through the arrangement of certain architectural elements and mechanisms. On the other hand, it is an intangible environment that takes it to a personal and subtle plane where the life of the users develops. As with everything we become accustomed to, the space where we mainly develop our lives doesn’t seem to be important or attractive enough to elevate them to a higher state.
Today, we live in a flexible and changing society in which residents follow or adopt different lifestyles. In some cases, you can even see that a new way of life has been created, both individually and collectively.
It is at this point where architects must act as agents of change to adapt these issues to current demands.
This fact has a direct impact on architecture, because it serves people, their habits, customs and ways of being, and because the changing nature of their lives has completely changed the way they live, directly
Nowadays housing is considered as a normal thing, it is taken for granted, not as in other subjects, which a priori because of their complexity, we consider more important such as science, economy or politics, and this is somehow marginalized in contemporary thought. However, the basic principles of life are as complex and often perplexing as these aforementioned issues, and their importance should certainly be taken into account within the contemporary world. In the book The handbook of contemporary indigenous architecture the authors write: “it is worth risking the hypothesis that, if the paradigm of architectural culture in the sixties was the city and the spaces of public life, the paradigm of culture now would be housing and the spaces of private life” (Grant, E. et al 2018, 24) For decades, changing lifestyles have required urgent changes in housing patterns. Today’s society is more diverse and vibrant than ever before. However, most residential buildings today were designed and built in a very different socio-cultural environment, and therefore may have become obsolete for the medium-term future.
Figure 2. Paths at home - Westermeier F. 2020 3
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues
work “La vida contemporánea”, it is logical that, as a consequence of the transformations of the groups of coexistence, habits are modified both in a social field and in housing, and it is at this point where the architect has to understand the context in which he develops from a contemporary perspective.(Paricio Ansuategui and Sust 2000)
affecting the most basic element of their lives, the home. It is the direct ability of the architect to make the necessary changes in the house to make it a malleable element so that it can adapt to any lifestyle. This is an evident reality in the field of architecture and society, and ultimately, in people’s daily lives.
Similarly, the values of equality, ecology, education and other issues are also on the rise, coupled with the above situation, is creating a social tendency to share. This can be one of the advantages of society. Contemporary housing should be utilized by promoting spaces, enriching architecture and society.
On the one hand, we have traditional groups living together and on the other hand, groups that due to economic problems, both global and local, changes in population trends related to birth/death rates, longevity and other aspects that lead to new social lifestyles, such as changes in family relationships between different generations, single-parent families and the emergence of families, the delay in the age of marriage or the difficulty for young people to become independent, have mutated in their way of experiencing the domestic.
To some extent, the concept of living under the same roof is dualistic. On the one hand, with the rise and progress of science and technology, society’s tendency toward individualism has become increasingly evident. This feeling of individuality will definitely create isolation among people who share the same living space and affect the concept of contemporary community.
Therefore, housing must be able to respond by adapting to the needs of its neighbours, being built as a flexible and malleable element that can cover or absorb the variability of these needs.
This can be seen in the following extract from the doctoral thesis “Public in Private” by Fermín Delgado (2016): “Postmodern society tends more and more towards individualism. Things have changed a little since then, and the current situation of these buildings reflects the fall in part of those socialist ideals, where a collective life in decline gives way to an increasingly individualistic life developed in more isolated enclosures. In most cases, all that communal vitality has been reduced to a swimming pool or a garden that try to remedy the melancholic presence of common uses, and the boundary between the private space of the building and the public space of the street in many cases is simply resolved with a metal fence. Phenomena such as globalization through new technologies accentuate this phenomenon of individualization and isolation. Even the installations are projected from this individualistic position, which does not economize means, and which pursues a quick and profitable sale. Now that the concerns of hygiene and habitability of the avant-garde have been overcome, the challenge is
Figure 3. “A home, a city, a garden.” (S.Fujimoto drawing) In this way, we must conceive the idea of an architectural project from the perspective of the occupants, and not the other way around, because it is the end user who decides their behaviors when it comes to living. As Ignacio Aparicio and Xavier Sust point out in their
4
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues the recovery and qualification of those spaces that strengthen the social environment”. (Delgado Perera 2016)
can be unified into a spatial strategy. These strategies, through contemporary housing, can meet these new requirements to obtain satisfactory results.
However, combined with the above points of housing flexibilization, in today’s domestic landscape, the rise of temporary residents, the self-employed and the changes to the traditional family model discussed above will require rethinking the boundaries of the public and private within the family.
The common point that can cover these needs is the capacity to absorb the variability that they present, making the spaces more flexible. Creating a malleable house that can generate or cancel procedures depending on the instantaneous needs of the living group can not only meet these requirements, but allows the ability of the occupants to shape it, and even make them feel that they are part of it, since it will be modified according to the needs of the residents.
As the only form of coexistence, intimacy around the family began to lose meaning. At that moment, the family space began to be considered as a system of collective property, resulting in shared buildings.
Therefore, the key to the house’s ability to withstand all these aspects lies in its long-term flexibility: the life of the house and the life of its occupants.
Shared housing brings together a series of people of equal or different social, economic and cultural conditions, who do not even know each other, but who live in the same space and have a different relationship with the home than that of the ordinary homes of a family unit, creating, of course, a new type of home.
This period of time will be difficult to define, because we do not know if it includes the entire life of the person, the temporary stay of the tenant, the time before the young person leaves the house or any other situation difficult to predict since the life of a person is completely variable in all aspects, habits, customs and ways.
This new model of shared architecture not only changes the interior of the house, but has also established some interrelationships with the outside world.
The processes of change on habitability have been taking place for decades with the gradual development of society, however, and taking into account that housing is the building typology that is most present both in the city and in rural areas, it is certainly interesting to focus on collective housing.
Using the housing unit as a reference point, the neighbours go out to look for other spaces where they can carry out different production and reproduction activities in an environment that can support basic functions: living, working, supplying, caring, learning in the close environment to enjoy the public space and spaces of tertiary character.
Generally, and after a somewhat excessive urban development from the second half of the previous century, these new ways of living try to adapt to buildings that were not designed to house them, the result of the imposition of lifestyle on the existing typology. Although in some cases it could become functional, logic itself indicates the opposite. For this reason, and with a view to the future, contemporary housing must anticipate these developments to allow the flexibility that is demanded.
Community development seems to be a proposal aimed at combating the individualism in which we find ourselves, which allows us to live together more and more, and at the same time, either by choice or by imposition, we feel more alone. As a result, a number of conditions and needs come into play, such as privacy and intimacy, shared space and inclusion of residents.
According to the Analysis of the characteristics of residential building in Spain (Ed. 2014) conducted by the Ministry of Development “most of the existing housing in Spain is multi-family. In 2001 the multi-
After transforming changes in needs, new domestic demands must be layered on top of these until they
5
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues family stock amounted to 13.9 million dwellings (67%) compared to 6.9 million single-family dwellings.”
that are a reality in buildings already constructed and not completely functionally adapted for them because they were not designed to accommodate this purpose.
This data indicates that the residential trend, leaving aside rehabilitation, of new construction for the “housing stock” will be collective housing. Here we can find a problem that directly confronts the flexibility of contemporary housing and the new ways of living with what must be the housing of today and tomorrow, being this the strict normative and regulatory framework on multifamily housing, especially on social housing. No system is infallible. However, the problem with what can be considered a strict regulation (state and regional) is that it determines the maximum available area based on the number of bedrooms, completely regulating the number of rooms and their functions.
Figure 4. “How will we live togerther?.” Venice Biennale 2021 poster However, these models are proposed as a sustainable alternative to shared care, because through cooperation and common services among residents, social, economic and environmental benefits can be obtained.
On the contrary, it establishes a program that only attends to the basic needs of the human being, and does not produce the possibility of evolution of the same environment to housing and a changing reality. For example, it does not take into account the possibility of creating community spaces for shared family programs, such as laundry, which would free up space and thus provide space for other types of programs with which to create housing and giving rise to greater flexibility of the same.
On the other hand, in this type of “community”, nature begins to play an increasingly important role, in which space seems to be shared in a richer way through the design of different configurations of outdoor space in which urban gardens or orchards appear, making it even more sustainable. To do this we must try to implement the modification of the residential paradigm so that, as the architect Iñaki Alonso says, “we assume the transformation of buildings from these “machines for living” to the new paradigm of living organisms. Organisms of life for which new meanings are appearing every time (e)cohousing, sustainable co-living, or ecological cohousing that from the responsible architecture we must claim as spaces of possibility for care.” (Nikezić et al, 2021, 18)
It is too logical and evident the fact of determining certain minimums to ensure habitability, but on the other hand, establishing a maximum in the surface does not allow the architect, or makes it difficult, to build housing that allows the user to live and develop in a more organic and versatile way as it has been remarked during this writing. Parallel to individual capitalism and as a reaction to it, architecture must provide solutions for new forms of life in which collaborative culture, coworking, cohousing, co-living and other variants have emerged as models of connection between society.
In addition, due to the health and social crisis triggered by COVID-19, the need for changes in housing has become increasingly evident.
These constructive and legislative regulations certainly restrict and limit the creation of these spaces
After the long period of confinement forced by this
6
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues
the globalization of strategically crucial economic activities, by its networked form of organization, by the flexibility and instability of work and its individualization, by a culture of real virtuality constructed through a system of omnipresent, interconnected and diversified media, and by the transformation of the material foundations of life, space and time, through the constitution of a space of flows and timeless time, as expressions of the dominant activities and ruling elites. This new form of social organization, in its pervasive globality, is spreading all over the world...”. (Castells 1997)
epidemic, the general population gradually realized that the houses built under these regulations could not cover the basic needs in the fundamentals of living in the domestic framework, and even in the workplace. The architect Carlos Lamela said in an interview during the crisis that “We are learning that we have to devise versatile housing for an unpredictable world” and continuing with his words, life changes according to the situation of the residents and their needs.
Due to the pandemic suffered, the increase of teleworking has shot up irremediably, and although it is true that it already existed previously, and there were even countries where it was exercised regularly, now it is diluted as a stable methodology in time in the first world.
The aforementioned period of confinement gave rise to a new way of working and living in the home. Society has realized that we need housing that is malleable and adaptable and that also allows and encourages the creation and continuation of these aforementioned “new communities” to adapt to the different situations that occur throughout our lives at home. (Nikezić et al, 2021, 18)
As a result, workplaces, as well as production tasks, have been partially or totally transferred to the family space, to the domestic sphere. These activities are already mixed at any time of daily life or, necessarily, in any space of the home without there being a clear distinction between space suitable for rest and space for production.
Another aspect in which is increased the social flexibility and due to that the architectural flexibility should do it as well is the actual fact of working from home. We are operating in an increasingly heterogeneous and fragmented society, where the boundaries between time and geography are increasingly dispersed. It is increasingly common for professionals to be at the service of global companies, moving temporarily to other countries or working from home. Therefore, we are witnessing the deterritorialization of production and life patterns due to the use of the Internet, new technologies and new unipersonal models as protagonists of new lifestyles, thus redefining the connection between family activities and productive activities.
Figure 5. “Living and working together, reflections on post-pandemic productivity and empathy” ArchDaily, 2020
The division of time and human activity is in crisis, and at the same time, the boundary between family and production seems to be blurred and blurred.
Moreover, in addition to the new family models and their heterogeneity, public and private life has begun to acquire new meanings in the workplace as well, creating new connections between personal and community life in the domestic and productive sphere.
“The information technology revolution and the restructuring of capitalism have brought about a new form of society, the network society, characterized by
7
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues
finishing processes of manufactured elements and a long etcetera that denies the separation between residence and work as a universal fact. (Montaner 2011)
With all this, the residential typology that we inherited, as expressed in the previous epigraph, has become rigid and dysfunctional not only for contemporary habitation, but also for contemporary work and production models, which also have repercussions in the first term, creating a spectrum of depolarization with increasingly diffuse axes.
As has been emphasized throughout this paper, changes in lifestyles over the decades have always required urgent changes in housing patterns and living patterns.
We focus on the challenges of contemporary housing, and with it the residential forms of the future. At the moment it seems clear that the trend in which more and more work will be developed from the domestic space, however, it is interesting to appreciate how this “new phenomenon” has been a constant for centuries.
Joining with the previous epigraph, the real estate market is nowadays full of residential systems in which we continue to find the same type of housing in previous generations, being with closed houses with non-changing uses, which try to impose lifestyles to the residents during the useful life of the building, and are mainly concerned with the aesthetic fixation and functional interpretation.
Before industrialization, outside of the agricultural sphere, we found an urban residential structure that linked the domestic sphere with the work sphere in the form of workshops for artisans of different trades. These artisan houses were places for family production activities, and also provided shelter and space functions for the residents. (Alonso 2019, 6)
As we have seen, these types are subject to obsolete and inflexible regulations that run counter to new family models, new models of living away from home, working from home, new technologies and shared-space housing schemes.
This system was found both in rural areas, where the houses were at the same time stables, barns and shelters, and in the cities, where the houses were also workshops and spaces for business. In this way, there was no residential area composed of a housing complex or a series of rooms, but the main room was constantly changing and was used for different productive and domestic activities. In this sense, we are facing new realities and needs in traditional work paradigms. These realities have to give rise to new lines in housing construction projects, in which new forms of sharing, communal living, interacting with nature and new technologies have taken on a new meaning for the creation of contemporary housing.
Figure 6. Winter garden added on existing facade L&V Grand Parc Bordeaux EU Mies van der Rohe 2019 prize winner (Archive) Anne Lacaton stressed that a building must be permanent and, at the same time, it must have the capacity to change. While the structure is permanent, the use is temporary (...) the structure offers initial conditions that make variations possible at any time (...) The structure, as we conceive it, can be permanent, since we do not see it as a restriction but much more as a way of providing floors or floors and spaces.
In this line, the Barcelona architect Josep Maria Montaner comments that the new technical means and the new work structures have produced that the house becomes. The home has never ceased to be a place of paid work, although for many families, and especially for women, it has never ceased to be a place of work, both domestic and free as well as paid. Let’s think of seamstresses, teachers, support classes, in the
8
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues This way, everything can happen on the inside. It’s about making components that overlap, without being restricted by the same layers. (Mayoral Moratilla and Lacaton 2018)
its way of living in an active way as agents of change of reality. Continuing with the literature on Lacaton and Vassal she says “we cannot talk about architecture without including use and incorporating people in the discussion”(Mayoral Moratilla and Lacaton 2018, 3) which clearly shows the behaviors we have to adopt when designing.
Working from home in a forced way has clearly opened a line towards reflection about the lack of flexibility and adaptability of our homes. Affected by the epidemic, almost all domestic spaces had to become part-time offices, and yet, due to their rigidity, the user is forced to adapt to a combination of work and family activities that are not very functional and often antagonistic to each other. We move from form follows function; the form has to be so flexible that it allows for a whole range of different functions within it.
We thus obtain a perspective of these architects who formulate an open hypothesis raised by the difunctionalized space, which becomes noticeable in their work and projects, in which they try to give more space to the house even when this was not foreseen in the initial idea of the project, creating a strategy of “double space” or “spatial doubling” assuming an endowment of expansion of space on the building as external or semi-external space for the enjoyment of its residents and that allows functional flexibility of the same, being in some cases the volume that occupy the basic vital functions, while in other cases only extends the perimeter of the house to extend the existing fixed spaces.
However, in the history of architecture, studies of changes in family space to meet the requirements of an ever-changing society have been frequent, and research must follow the same line. Since the modern era, there have been architects who have been interested in this variability of the home space when planning, but now, thanks to technological and constructive advances, this has become increasingly feasible. The responsibility of architecture is to propose new project strategies that not only take into account our current experience, but also support future needs.
It is interesting to approach the work of these architects in which their buildings unequivocally experience a duality between permanence and variability of residential space marked by a strong theory in the fundamentals of inhabiting. While some users are given a series of spaces that have been assigned fixed and specific functions as areas that need to be used permanently due to structural or infrastructure requirements, in other cases a space is given as uncertain as possible in terms of function, in a way that allows residents to use it in any way, leaving it completely open to the adaptability and flexibility required by contemporary living and working needs, changing its use and function over time.
In view of the construction of housing, it is necessary to choose a strategy of housing model that can meet the needs that arise during its period of permanent form, even without knowing what they may be, which will be an unmistakable sign of the extension of its useful life. These new strategies to be adopted should be open to change, especially for the users and for them to participate in a certain way in the functional planning, at least in a theoretical way as a form of participatory democratic architecture, in which architects should take the voice of the citizens and their needs, amplifying the knowledge of social problems in order to make architectural formalizations more and more effective within this diffuse and changing framework in which we develop, solving the common problems of society in
In this way, although structure is a permanent and necessary attribute, it does not have to be something restrictive in itself, seeking in this way, as Anne Lacaton herself says, “to produce conditions for permanence and for permanent change”.(Mayoral Moratilla and Lacaton 2018) In this sense, the reference on the work of Lacaton 9
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues and Vassal allows us to link with the following point of this writing that concerns the contemporary housing as it is the identity or loss of identity of the domestic space in favor of the standardization against the customization of the same one.
is, a new form of work whose purpose is not merely economic, but also to share feelings, ideas and connections. The house, as a concept, is a constantly changing entity that is generated through the limits and dualities of its spaces beyond the rigidity or flexibility that is present. The movement, the external elements such as the air or the light that enters through the openings and the actions that take place in it make the domestic architecture a physical element that contains a series of natural and social changes constantly.
Conclusions From the point of view of the parameters that shape, organize and move contemporary society, it is easy to see how housing reflects the philosophical and sociological trends that directly affect the life and development of people as it has been theorized and developed in the study of the foundations of living.
To a large extent, this is due to the variability of lifestyles within our social system, which in turn directly affects the characteristics of this building and programmatic typology in its most primitive sphere: the home.
Through the residence, one can learn the behaviors of individuals from the great universal themes that affect the reality of our time. The definition of western culture in which we live is, among other factors, increasingly individualistic and materialistic thanks to the great technological advances that have been produced during the last decades, and which is reflected in the consideration of the private and domestic residential space as its favourite place.
This is the main reason why houses and buildings must be renovated to adapt to society and provide assistance according to its needs. As architects, we must participate in this process of change, because we have a responsibility to rethink the current architectural model so that everyone, no matter who they are and how they live, can have a place in it.
The current lifestyle changes, reflected in the new family structures, the needs for new forms of residences and the incipient forms brought about by this economic globalization and technology that we have been discussing throughout this paper, have given rise to a new individual living in an increasingly flexible society.
To do this, we must propose open and flexible solutions, even rethinking the regulatory frameworks under which the housing stock is built, to make it more ductile and malleable, promoting the tenant, the end user, to take ownership of the space and its identity from their own desire and need according to the life stages that develop without being restricted and corseted in a rigid structure and functionally obsolete.
In this heterogeneous and constantly changing society, we seek to understand the home and the contemporary family space as a support for diverse activities. At this moment, work is taken directly to the family space and they must functionally coexist, turning the home into consumption, care, reproduction and production. It is, therefore, a place of privacy, disconnection, leisure and work at the same time. This irremediably produces the creation of a new economy related to new forms of production, such as production from telework, remote and itinerant offices, online sales platforms, and other elements mentioned during the second epigraph of this writing, as well as new spaces of reproduction, that
10
MBArch - ETSAB
Contemporary Architectural Issues Bibliography - Castells, Manuel. 1997. The information age: economy, society and culture. Book. Edited by Carmen Martínez Gimeno. Madrid: Alianza. - Corbusier, Le. 1978. Towards an architecture [translation from the French: Josefina Martínez Alinari].2nd ed. Barcelona: Poseidon. - Delgado Perera, Fermín. 2016. PhD Thesis. “Lo Público En Lo Privado. La Calle Elevada Como Catalizador Del Encuentro Colectivo.” https://oa.upm.es/40452/. - García Sotos, Violeta. 2019. Master’s Thesis. “Housing & flexibility: new ways of inhabiting contemporary housing.” Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona. https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/328259 - Grant, E., Greenop, K., Refiti, A. L., & Glenn, D. J. (Eds.). 2018. The handbook of contemporary indigenous architecture (pp. 1-1001). Springer. - Mayoral Moratilla, José, and Anne Lacaton. 2018. “Lacaton & Vassal: Open Conditions for Permanent Change. Interview With Anne Lacaton.” MATERIA ARQUITECTURA #18, August 28, 2018. https://www.lacatonvassal.com/data/documents/20190905171740Revista_Materia_Arquitectura_18.pdf. - Montaner, Josep Maria. 2011. “Tools for inhabiting the present :housing in the 21st century.” Book. Edited by Zaida Muxí and David H. (David Hernández) Falagán. Barcelona: Master Laboratorio de la Vivienda del Siglo XXI. - Monteys Roig, Xavier. 2011. “De la casa collage al proyecto collage.” Book. In De la casa collage al proyecto collage. Institución Fernando el Católico. - Nikezić, A., Ristić Trajković, J., & Milovanović, A. (2021). Future Housing Identities: Designing in Line with the Contemporary Sustainable Urban Lifestyle. Buildings, 11(1), 18. - Paricio Ansuategui, Ignacio, and Xavier Sust. 2000. La Vivienda contemporánea : programa y tecnología. Book. Edited by Xavier Sust i Fatjó, Pascal Amphoux, and Josep Lluís Mateo. Barcelona: ITEC, Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya. - Rowe Peter G.; Kan, Har Ye. 2014 “Urban Intensities: Contemporary Housing Types and Territories”. Birkhäuser,. - Venturi, Robert, and Denise Scott Brown. 2004. Architecture as Signs and Systems : For a Mannerist Time. Book. Edited by Denise Scott Brown. William E. Massey, Sr. Lectures in the History of American Civilization. Cambridge
11