JAMES COSGRAVE Artefact by RMIT Architecture

Economy of Means James Cosgrave

Contents Abstract

Urban Proposal

Elements A: Services

Elements B: Structure

Elements C: Thresholds

Spaces A: Shared

Spaces B: Private

Conclusion

Less bound up in the fanciful and more interested in the prosaic, my project addresses the current housing crisis in Victoria, seeking to reassert the architect as a figure capable of meaningful social change. Categorised into elements and spaces, collectively the proposed architectural language aims to provide the maximum through the minimum of resources. With the increasing privatisation and demolition of inner city public housing blocks, less affluent demographics are banished to the outer suburbs of the city, alienated both geographically and socially. The housing is therefore conceived as a model to be deployed across 3 scales - the outer suburbs, the inner suburbs and the CBD, reflecting the argument that affordable housing should be available to anyone, anywhere. Underpinning both the urban and architectural concept is a proposed financial model that aims to remove the home- that is to say, architecture- from its current position as an instrument of capital accumulation. As Carol Willis notes, Form follows Finance, and so my proposed architectural logic is inextricable from the ideology of a co-operative Community Land Trust. From the financial structure to the banality of the everyday, from the letterbox to the downpipe, and from the outer suburbs to the inner city, each scale is as important as the next, making the project a bricolage without hierarchy. A model that in time can serve as an exemplar of design for the common good prevailing over private gain.

Model A is located in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, at number 16 Spartan way, Williams Landing; Model B is located in the inner suburbs, at 52 Rathdowne Street, Carlton. Model C is based in the CBD, at 433 Collins St where, not coincidentally, I have replaced Woods Bagots’ Collins Arch.

Model A, Williams Landing 8

Model A, Williams Landing 9

Model B, Carlton 10

Model B, Carlton 11

Model C, Melbourne, 3000 12

Model C, Melbourne, 3000 13

From here I have divided the proposed architecture into 2 categories: - Elements: those essential components that without which, a building is not a building. - Spaces: that which is private or domestic and flexible; and that which is public or shared and fixed. I will present each of these elements as they appear across the models, tethered to the scale of their respective contexts. In doing so I wish to convey the scalability not only of the model of housing itself, but of each of the elements that makeup the whole.

Elements: Services Viaduct Above ground conduits have been proposed which will pass utilities from one end of the building to another in Model C. When a building is financed through long-term bonds then long-term maintenance- perennially forgotten in apartment developments- is heavily considered, and the above-ground approach allows for an easy replacement and repair. Furthermore, the meandering conduit acts as a place-maker through the “charged void”, navigating the inhabitants through the open space, just as it does the utilities, offering junctions that play host to various activities. During the summer months the water services can be distributed to create lagoons of play, recalling the suburban backyard habit of Australian’s, playing in the water sprinkler. Conduits Given the absence of a developer in this model, unnecessary and stylistic extras that are typically used such as fittings are not included as this generally accounts for 20% of a developers profit. This logic is applied across all the internal spaces in each model, where feasible. Downpipe In keeping with the notion of saving expenses on not hiding- be it behind cladding, between slabs or under the earth- downpipes are used as a visual dividing mechanism on the facade of Model A, providing a resourceful use beyond its inherent service.

Model C: Services, Viaduct 16

Model C: Services, Viaduct 17

Model B: Services, Conduit 18

Model C: Services, Conduit 19

Model A: Services, Downpipe 20

Model :A Services, Downpipe 21

Elements: Structure

Bracket The bracket used to connect the CLT slab and load-bearing walls can be re-imagined as a shelf for knick-knacks. Somewhat simplistic, it’s duplicity reiterates the concept for the architecture that each element serve multiple purposes. The CLT construction itself accepts that while the initial cost of the material is currently higher than a similar material such as concrete, but there is a great reduction of on-site time and therefore costs due to the fact the material comes prefabricated. Mezzanine Maximizing the uses of each element within the architectural language is another way in which the project seeks an economy of means. The structural system that supports the mezzanine in the Model B can then be doubled as a shelving unit, or extended to create a desk Truss System Used in the 10 storey Model C, the bracing is necessary for its structural integrity. The 45 degree angle offers an oblique function to the inhabitants. Shared spaces abut these trusses at the corners of the block, and so can be imagined as play things for children or a storage opportunity for adults alike. Connection points within the network of the buildings infrastructure have thus been used equally as connection points for its inhabitants.

Model A: Structure, Bracket 24

Model A: Structure, Bracket 25

Model B: Structure, Mezzanine 26

Model B: Structure, Mezzanine 27

Model C: Structure, Truss 28

Model C: Structure, Truss 29

Elements: Thresholds

Letterbox In Model B small entry nooks were carved out of the plan between apartments, encouraging social interaction. The placement of a generously proportioned seat under the shared mailbox so that checking your mail, retrieving your neighbours while they are away, or having a coffee together are encouraged. A thorough consideration of the seemingly banal moments of inhabitants is possible when the need for marketing is removed through the financing. Fire Hydrant Booster In the city model the fire hydrant booster becomes an offering of encounter for members of the public and inhabitants alike. Rather than the typical unending lines of faceless walls that conceal boosters along the ground plane which plague the city, this alternative creates a half metre deep niche that can be inhabited, seen here on Williams street, to enjoy the last fleeting moments of the sun setting over the city. The same steel elements used to prop the booster above the ground act dually as supports for offcuts of CLT members repurposed as seats. Bannister Just like picking up the mail, putting out the bins is an often overlooked aspect of the design process- but what if this seemingly banal moment element of the suburban model was re-imagined so as to create a point of interaction with fellow inhabitants and neighbours alike. The edge is demanded by Rescode to partly hide the bins from the neighbours, but rather than the typical paling fence, what if it became a threshold that, using CLT with it’s solid stature and generous handrail, beckons to be encountered?

Model B: Thresholds, Letterbox 32

Model B: Thresholds, Letterbox 33

Model C: Thresholds, Fire Hydrant 34

Model C: Thresholds, Fire Hydrant 35

Model A: Thresholds, Bannister 36

Model A: Thresholds, Bannister 37

Spaces: Shared

Laundry Sharing means access to more, not less, and in the case of the laundry space in the suburban model, it offers inhabitants chances for encounter. The act of organising laundry timeslots on the schedule inevitably leads to engagement and mediation with other members of the cooperative. The laundry is built up on the boundary wall where the roofline follows the Rescode setback that we all recognise. Rather than a plasterboard bulkhead, the solution designed here is a skylight that catches northern light and rainwater, filtering through to be used in the trough and the washing machines, providing the maximum from the minimum of resources. Rooftop Just as the various singular elements take on multiple uses, so too do the spaces throughout the models. A balcony is not just a balcony- it also acts as circulation, simply by having it extended to more generous proportions. Similarly, the rooftop provides a secondary function as futsal court for the inhabitants of Model B. The rental agreement is such that rather than just paying money to a landlord, the rent accrued is counted as percentage ownership of the building/ bond which you can sell back to the Trust or to the next inhabitant. This means the rooftop is likely to stay in better condition when it is in everyone’s interest. Kitchen The fixed shared spaces within Model C intertwine the private dwellings. With these additional spaces it means that inhabitants can, as an example, host a dinner party whilst living in a one bedroom apartment. The housing model asks the question, what are we willing to share, as a way towards more connected communities living in more affordable housing?

Model A: Williams Landing 40

Model A: Laundry 41

Model B: Carlton 42

Model B: Futsal Court 43

Model C: Melbourne, 3000 44

Model C: Kitchen and Dining 45

Spaces: Private

Suburbs In Model A one can see how the homes are designed for anyone and for any amount of time, and thus the architecture pursued is one that allows maximum flexibility and adoption by its inhabitants. When housing is not considered as a commodity, the notion of selling points such as “Walk-in-robe” or 4 bedroom dual car garage are removed. The architecture needed an efficiency of plan, which saw internal circulation removed where possible. Pluralistic floorplans were favoured over more traditional functionalist arrangements, with the understanding that the nuclear family- which the Australian home is built for- is no longer the average household. This has led to an abundance of unused floorspace in the typical home. Inner City This model is not to be mistaken for a tendency that in architecture that affordable means small. Instead it aims to provide a sense of luxury and reinforce the notion that through sharing- sharing ownership and sharing everyday routines- there isn’t a reduction, but rather, a more generous portion of space. Inside each apartment, 5m high ceilings allow for the possibility of a mezzanine level, should the inhabitant wish for it. To quote this year’s Pritzker Prize winners, “spatial generosity in surface area and height is the prerequisite for freedom of appropriation and personal development.” To further this, I would argue that dwellings offering freedom, lead inevitably to more equitable cities and cohesive societies. These images are thus intended as a celebration of the everyday lives of the inhabitants that could be facilitated through this model. Sliding doors Because of the structural logic of the CLT slab and column arrangement, non-weight bearing walls are used to allow for greater flexibility within apartments. Additional partition walls can be easily introduced if the household expands over time. Similarly, sliding doors can connect 2 previously separate apartments. This is a type of housing that is more resourceful and open-ended than traditional rigidly defined houses.

Model A: Williams Landing 48

Model A: Interior View 49

Model A: Williams Landing 50

Model A: Interior View 51

Model B: Carlton 52

Model C: Interior View 53

Model C: Interior View 54

Model C: Interior View 55

Model C: Melbourne, 3000 56

Model C: Interior View 57

Taxonomy of Elements 58

At the beginning I mentioned my interest in the prosaic over the fancifuland by now you might be thinking to yourselves that this too is fanciful- a world where social ideas are forged and housing is considered as a right. And to this point I don’t entirely blame you but I would like to offer a ray of hope from the late anthropologist David Graeber who remarked that “the ultimate hidden truth of the world is it is something we make, and we could just as easily make differently”. Ultimately, my proposal, therefore, has been an attempt to make a difference- an attempt to ameliorate this deeply problematic situation that Reinieer de Graaf has remarked upon in an essay of his, in which he states “Modern architecture’s social mission- the effort to establish a decent standard of living for all- seems a thing of the past. Once more, architecture is a tool of capital, complicit in a purpose antithetical to its one-time ideological endeavour”. By forging a language of architecture- based on providing the maximum through the minimum of resources- from the threshold of the door to the application of services, and from the outer suburbs to the inner city, each scale is as important as the next. In time I hope this model can begin to work towards design for the common good prevailing over private gain.