Selected Academic Works ´19 by Neil Patel

s e l e c t e d

a c a d e m i c w o r k s

n e e l

p a t e l

h o m e l e s s

s h e l t e r

( a h m e d a b a d ,

i n d i a )

The programattic brief given only pointed towards creating a shelter for the homeless(50 males & 50 females)with ancillary spaces, keeping in mind a low project cost. Thus the use of cost effective construction techniques such as prefabrication, exposed materials etc were incorporated.

The interpretation of the the architectural intervention needed to convey a lot more than just being another functional building built inconspicuously in the urban fabric, especially when there is a social motive associated with it. The dominant nature of the form ensures that the structure and the social agenda it responds become conspicuous to the public

Functionally, the requisite number of beds for the homeless were stacked vertically in a number of dorms which liberated space which was to be used by the inhabitants as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;safe havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

Further, some of this liberated space was to be converted into commercial spaces for rent which would aid in upkeep of the shelter.

A split level planning was

adopted to segregate the female dorms from their male counterparts to ensure safety 2

and security, while maintaining

daily access convinience for every level.

Solar panel facades on the southern face of the structure ensure proper shading of the interior spaces while generating 4

electricity, ensuring a lower operating cost of the entire program. 1

5 5 3 2 4 1 Legend

1. Male Dornitory 2. Male Toilet 3. Female Toilet 4. Female Dormitory 5. Solar Panels

6. Mulitfunctional Terrace 7. Garden Area 8. Store

t y p y c i a l

l a y o u t

t o w e r

b l o c k

A split level planning was adopted to segregate the female dorms from their male counterparts to ensure safety and security, while maintaining daily access convinience for every level.

Solar panel facades on the southern face of the structure ensure proper shading of the interior spaces while generating electricity, ensuring a lower operating cost of the entire program.

Legend 1. Male Dornitory 2. Male Toilet 3. Female Toilet 4. Female Dormitory 5. Solar Panels

6. Mulitfunctional Terrace 7. Garden Area 8. Store

6 8

f i s h e r y

p o d

( g o a ,

i n d i a )

Legend 1. Wind Breaker + Structure 2. Pod Structural Frame 3. Pod Skin

4. Access Ladder 5. Fishing Deck 6. Lightning Rod

4 5

e x p l o d e d

a x o n o m e t r i c

p l a n

w i t h

b r e e d i n g

p o n d

p e r s p e c t i v e

s e c t i o n

h o u s i n g

( n a s h i k ,

i n d i a )

The housing development is designed to be a concrete manifestation of various “social strata”. Hence, the site plan is seen as a “dialogue” between the people and their cultural nuances. Inclusive green public bays that become the “petri dish” for various social activities are interwoven in the very fabric of the site plan.

Certain portions of the units at the podium level are meant to house various activities such as cafe’s, gyms, stores, etc. that not only help sustain the populace, but also become an interactive and lively part of the “pedestrian street” that is forged specifically to bring back public life in such housing systems.

v a r i a t i o n s

i n

f l o o r

p l a n s

b l o c k

a x o n o m e t r i c

s h o w i n g

t e r r a c e s

p e r s p e c t i v e

s e c t i o n

p l a n a r

c o n s t r u c t

( m i l a n ,

i t a l y )

The aim of this exercise was to acheive a conceptual level of housing design via unconventional methods.

The final form is a culmination for careful and very `personal`modulation of 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional Planar Constructs that formed the impetus behind the project.

c o n c e p t u a l

g r a p h i c

c o n c e p t u a l

g r a p h i c

i i

c o n c e p t u a l

g r a p h i c

i i i

p l a n a r

c o n s t r u c t s

d e r i v e d

f r o m

g r a p h i c

s t u d i e s

f i n a l

g r a p h i c

f o r m

d e r i v e d

f r o m

g r a p h i c

s e c t i o n a l

v a r i a t i o n s

s i t e

p l a c e m e n t

m a s t e r s

t h e s i s

a f f o r d a b l e

h o s u i n g

p r o t o t y p e

( b e r l i n , g e r m a n y )

communal terrace

rental apartments

recntal apartments

rental apartments

walkway

communal terrace residential street residential street

affordable apartments

commercial spaces

affordable apartments courtyard

walkway sunken court

public space

housing amenities (day care center, community halls etc.)

parking

commercial and public spaces

c o n c e p t u a l

road

s k e t c h

s h a r e d

s p a c e s

i n c o m e

drive way

residential spaces, parking, internal roadways

g e n e r a t o r s

community sp

Affordability Via Sharing The current minimum standard for an unit that is viable for affordable housing is 40 sq.m. This

Conventional Organization

basic unit contains the following Conventional Unit

funtions : 1. Living Space 2. Kitchen & Dining Space

3. Bedroom 4. Bathroom & Storage Shared Activities

However, upon splitting this conventional unit into spaces

that are ‘individual’ in nature

Redestribution for Micro Communities

and spaces that are ‘communal’ in nature, a more optimized unit

Optimization and Division

can be achieved which requires less space as it tends to cater to

only the basic and most private aspects of living, the remainder

Optimized Unit

of the floor space can be given to shared functions or be converted into other optimized units to attain more density and cost efficiency

Shared Living Organization

Shared Void s h a r e d

l i v i n g

d i a g r a m

Shared Living

III

Conventional Living

Design Sequence for Shared Living - I. Conventional Organization II. Optimization & Division III. Redestribution for Micro Communities IV. Inclusion of Shared Activities V. Shared Living Organization

Affordability Via Sharing

Less Users/ sqm

Existing Financial Model

Government Financing

- Less Density - Less Economic Feasibility - Less accessible social spaces -Less Functional Variation (MonoFunctional)

More Users/sqm Income Generation Via Rental Apartments (Maximum 28% of all Units)

Conventional Living

Proposed Financial Model

Shared Living

Total Floor Area(sq.m) : 256

Total Units : 16

Total Units : 19

Density (dw/ha) : 62.5

Density (dw/ha) : 74.2

Social Voids : Less

Social Voids : More

Functional Variation : Less

Functional Variation : More

- More Density - More Economic Feasibility - More accessible social spaces -More Functional Variation (Mixed Use)

Income Generation Via Commercial Spaces Government Financing

e c o n o m i c

b e n e f i t s

f i n a n c i a l

m o d e l

(10-15% of Ground Coverage)

S.F. - 9 Affordable Units + Shared Spaces+ Communal Terrace

Fi.F. - 4 Commercial Units + Communal Street & Terrace

F.F. - 10 Affordable Units + Shared Spaces

Fo.F. - 4 Commercial Units + Communal Street & Terrace

G.F. - 10 Affordable Units + Shared Spaces

T.F. - 4 Commercial Units + Communal Street & Terrace Communal Terraces

f i n a l

f l o o r

p l a n s

Shared Spaces

Initial Stage - Excessive Communal Void

Intermediate Stage - Reduced Communal Void

Communal Void Form

Massing

Ground Floor (Affordable Units)

d e v e l o p m e n t

o f

m a s s

a n d

c o m m u n a l

v o i d

f o r m

Final Stage - Optimized Communal Void

c o u r t y a r d

c o n f i g u r a t i o n

s e c t i o n a l

a n d

p l a n a r

s e q u e n c e s

g r o u n d

f l o o r

p l a n

c o u r t y a r d

c o n f i g u r a t i o n

Shared Spaces

f i f t h

f l o o r

p l a n

c o u r t y a r d

c o n f i g u r a t i o n

Communal Terraces

Shared Spaces

s e c t i o n

c o u r t y a r d

c o n f i g u r a t i o n

III

5th Floor Plan Internal Social Street

s e c t i o n a l

s e q u e n c e

s t r e e t

c o n f i g u r a t i o n

I I. Massing II. Mass-Void Inclusion III. Void Formation

Communal Terraces

Shared Spaces

s e c t i o n

t h r o u g h

t h e

c o m m u n a l

v o i d