Nascent Karposh_12 Nascent by rob.goacher

Rob Goacher DS4 2018-19

AN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SPATIAL EMANCIPATION 02. nASCENT

Structure forms Precedents: Structures and frameworks Frame development Utopia Enable Supporting Birth of a frame Inner Focus: Development New Interventions Inner Focus: Development New types of living and sharing spaces Constructing the frame: development Location of new additions Housing: provision development Model: Development Exploration of new typology Components: Capsules Components: Masts Components: Connections Spatial testing Capsules: Interchangeable panels Components: Capsule development Transformation: Addition towards framed addition

From my exploration and speculation of the addition economy, I started to think about how the addition typology and the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;makersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; could be utilised to provide new forms and structures to be inhabited throughout Karposh. I started to explore metabolist structures (inspired by the post-1963 city centre (Tange) masterplan and further developing a new typology. I further started to understand the different dynamics and issues at play in Karposh behind the addition agendas and their radical progression towards new overarching interventions.

Framing additions

ADDITIONS

FRAMING

ADDITIONS

FRAMING

I started translating the typology of agenda driven addition and the makerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy into forms separate from the existing facade of apartments.

I continued exploring ideas of how new addition inhabited frames could be expanded and turned in a megastructure infrastructure across the city.

Frames s expand lowly takeov er and across Karpos h

ADDITIONS

FRAMING

I xplored these ideas further through sketching and quick exploration studies.

OUT Of NTILEVER

FRAME

Will the new structures inhabit?

WHERE

With the frames creating a new form of artificial ground, it could be located anywhere throughout Skopje, even spanning the hills around the Kale Fortress, across the city, across the river and park through the zoo area and into Karposh; In a way completing the section of Tange’s masterplan which called for the abridging of the river- linking the diverse communities on each bank; in a similar way to Constant’s ‘New Babylon’ which envisioned a network of communities throughout the world.

The initial artificial ground could be situated within the Skopje Zoo area as there aren’t as many complex ownership issues as other areas, and the parkland could remain with the new artificial ground above it.

Or the initial structures could be formed within a community; for example Karposh- though ownership issues and framework placement would be harder; getting residents to start adding modules and additions to the structures may be easier near there homes.

FORM Precedent

FORMS

STRUCTURE

I started to develop the structure further, b y looking at a series of forms and precedents.

Cedric Price, Inter Action Centre, London Frame The frame is endless, It could be infinite, allows for additions to slot in within it easily. Cheap/little material required. But lacks a certain solidity as well as an inability for the additions to be of different size/ scale (apart from dimensions which fit within the frame.

Constant Nieuwenhuys, New Babylon Perch/Elevated The perch elevates the addition, allowing for a new inhabited ground level of additions to be formed with the existing ground level free to be used for infrastructure. But perches or elevations may not provide enough structure for everyday ‘makers’ to construct additions with found or cheap materials.

Kenzo Tange, Tokyo Bay Masterplan Linear A central linear permanent infrastructure is constructed which can carry on forever with less permanent personal additions built to the side of the infrastructure- destroying the essence of a city centre. The problem with this linear system is the excessive output to create a large linear infrastructure and the fact the linear form doesn’t fit easily with existing forms or with existing topography.

Kenzo Tange, Shizuoka Press Centre Tower (Single Core) Towers can contain infrastructures and services, with additions bolted or attached onto the sides, it fits economically and effectively in terms of scale. The issue with the tower typology is the lack of ease with attaching the cantilevering additions to the tower; making it harder for cheap, personal additions.

Kiyonori Kikutake, Sky House with move-net Suspension The additions can be suspended between or below the structure; allowing for inhabited levels. The additions have built in shelter from the roof/structure, and it can be built incrementally. The issue with suspended additions are that it is hard to attach them to the structure, and that it limits the typology of addition.

Precedent

FORM

FORMS

STRUCTURE

Arata Isozaki, Clusters in the air Forest (Multi-core) Towers can contain infrastructures and services, with additions bolted or attached onto the sides, it fits economically and effectively in terms of scale. The addition of more towers allow for the towers to support more additions together making it easier together. Though easier at attaching than towers, it would require significant investment to build all the infrastructure- though this could be done incrementally.

Kiyonori Kikutake, Ocean City

Kiyonori Kikutake, Disaster Prevention City

Floating Metabolism was formed in Japan, a country which lacked available space and where land ownership very complex, floating infrastructure provided answers for these issues.

Grid A urban elevated grid, like Kikutakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project above could provide an urban ground level to prevent disaster or problems, It can support numerous additions and be expanded indefinitely.

Though Skopje has a lack of affordable housing and space in some areas, (apparent by the additions of Karposh), there is not enough water nearby to enable floating cities, the River Vardar is probably not wide enough.

The grids may though still be to inefficient economically is not incremental; nor provide enough structure to support all the additions.

Frame tower grid A compromise typology of structure could be formed a frame-tower-grid. The benefits of the efficiency of the tower, the incrementally of the grid, the benefits of elevation and suspension to fit within existing landscapes, as well as the ease of addition the frame typology allows. The frame-tower grid should allow for a landscape of addition to overlay the city, provide space for entrepreneurial and residential activities to combat the issues of Skopje at that time- with temporary additions within permanent structures built through the addition economy,

structures and frameworks

PrecedentS

I further explored the idea of frames by looking at a series of precedents, highlighting the metabolist idea of artificial ground, Constantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s idea of expression responsive networks of cities and Cedric prices, hyper-adaptable and temporary interventions.

How might a metabolist mega-structure traverse the river Vardar near Karposh

Fun Palace

Precedent

Cedric Price 1961-1964 The ‘Fun Palace’ was a collaboration between the revolutionary theatre director, Joan Littlewood and Cedric Price. The unrealised, but fully planned proposal was intended to be situated in the East End of London in Stratford. It was designed to be a ‘laboratory of fun and ‘a university of the streets’. The building was designed in a similar way as the InterAction centre as a flexible steel framework into which pre-fabricated spaces/forms with specific programmes can be plugged into via gantry cranes; they can be assembled, rearranged, scrapped or moved constantly. The structures intention was to facilitate change due to the choice and at the behest of its users. Cedric Price had a vision of the city as inventive, creative and playful and felt that architecture had a significant belief in architecture’s moral obligation. The ‘Fun Palace’ was also an exploration in new technology and it’s ability to serve the public and allow for increased human freedom. In line with Price’s philosophy his work was intended to remove any barriers to (both physical or psychological) on its users and inhabitants or reduce architecture to standard forms; ‘Fun Palace’ users could “Choose what you want to do – or watch someone else doing it. Learn how to handle tools, paint, babies, machinery, or just listen to your favourite tune. Dance, talk or be lifted up to where you can see how other people make things work. Sit out over space with a drink and tune in to what’s happening elsewhere in the city. Try starting a riot or beginning a painting – or just lie back and stare at the sky.”; The building and it’s spatial form would be under the users control. It was meant to be an interactive and adaptable, educational and cultural complex with facilities for dancing, music, drama and fireworks on disused public land slated for regeneration and like the InterAction centre was only meant to be temporary, having a 10 year life expectancy. Several sites were considered and the design could of been situated nearly anywhere. Price was interested in architecture which was more responsive to people’s needs (CCA, 2018)(MOMA, 2018)(Glynn 2018).

The ‘Fun Palace’ was a frame, embedded with parts under constant change, assembled, rearranged or dismantled to meet the needs of the users.

Interaction CEntre

Precedent

Cedric Price 1972-77 (Demolished in 2003) The InterAction centre was one of Cedric Price’s only built works; and it could be argued the only one which really included his theoretical ideas of adaptability of programme, expansion and contraction and the use of pre-fabricated and of-the-shelf industrial material, similar to his theoretical ideas behind the ‘Fun Palace’ in 1961 a project on the banks of the Thames for theatre director Joan Littlewood- an anti-building of moving walls and floors with little permanence and no solid entry points or roofready to be reassembled/configured at will. The InterAction centre was a multi-programme community centre in Kentish Town, London. It takes the ideas behind the ‘Fun Palace’, being expandable and flexible. Price rejects the ideas of monumentality for ideas of transformation and adaptability. Price thought architecture should be demolished to meet new programmatic demands. The centre was designed to last around 20 years and was demolished in 2003- Price even campaigned against it being listed. The building is based around a large structural system of trusses; which means different, temporary internal configurations and modules are able to be inserted. The linear layout of the centre meant that there was the possibility of infinite horizontal expansion. Price encouraged this by only situating part of the initial programme (a large hall) in a permanent building with the other programmes situated in temporary elements (containers, stands, sheds etc.) built within the aforementioned frame. The industrial nature of the structure, elements and materials emboldens and realises the utopian ideas of an architecture of constant change (Hidden Architecture, 2017)(St John’s College, 2014).

The interaction centre’s philosophy was one of transformation and change.

New Babylon

Precedent

Constant Nieuwenhuys 1959-74 (Demolished in 2003) New Babylon proposes an ideal futuristic global city where rapid change is constant and life is lived ‘vertically’. The city is a flexible network of structures and buildings supported on pillars and extending all over Europe. The city is divided into multi-storey sectors, within which inhabitants move around on foot or take lifts between levels. Environmental comfort is artificially controlled. The space beneath the city becomes a place for infrastructurecars, buses and lorries pass underneath. The roof above the structures is envisioned to inhabitants with landscaped walkways, pedestrian areas and even airport runways. Nieuwenhuys took inspiration from the book Homo Ludens (Johan Huizinga) to design models for playful and creative cities. The inhabitant is free from manual labour, and can give there life over to creative pursuits. What role can art play in making everyday life fill itself with creative expression? New Babylon envisions a global network of connected cities; where all land is collectively owned and labour automated. Without the need to work; a nomadic, creative and free lifestyle exists. Constant aimed for the city to be as free as possible, movement shouldn’t be limited. Life and it’s activities create the environments not the other way round. Constant produced models and drawings which spread out connected across the Netherlands, Europe and the world. New Babylon wasn’t just a design for a futuristic city but as “a design for a new culture” (Gemeente Museum, 2018)(Fondation Constant, 2018).

New Babylon provides a network of cities, each a framework to enable structures and buildings to sit within. These strucures respond to creative wants within a rhythm of constant change.

Metabolist ARCHITECTURE

Precedent

Metabolism 1960s Metabolism responded to the post war Japanese landscapeone our near complete destruction. It mixed Japanese tradition, contemporary pressures and possible futures to develop radical visions. Architects used the opportunities of post-war regeneration to put into practice theories and ideas for how cities should be designed. Metabolist architecture envisioned architectural an urban proposals which are responsive, replaceable with the ability to grow in an organic way. Its main expression was through the ‘megastructure’, using it as a means of addressing socio-political issues such as growing urban populations and changing lifestyles. In common metabolist thought; the megastructure was destined to be modular, extenable/expandable and have/serve as a framework in which smaller components could be ‘plugged in’ or replaced. A major principle of the metabolist vision was the idea architecture could mediate the human and non-human urban scales; architecture as a non-human megastructure in effect controlled by personal needs or wants. The metabolist’s megastructures were large and evolved from plans for colonial projects on blank canvases. But within most urban landscapes; a flat empty space isn’t available, therefore a major principle of Metabolism is the creation of an artificial ground for the responsive architecture to be created on (Koolhaas and Ulrich Obrist, 2011)(Designing Buildings, 2017).

Metabolism changed how architecture is envisioned, it is not permanent and responds to individual needs and organically expandable.

Metabolist ARCHITECTURE

Precedent

Urban Plan Though 51% of Tokyo was destroyed in the war. Tokyo ‘s population was increasing massively (1945 3.5m- 1960 9.5m) and it’s urban development couldn’t respond; land ownership was complex and the city lacked any previous master-planning. Tokyo bay became an opportunity for development as there was little other space available in the city. Tokyo bay therefore became a laboratory for the metabolist exploration of artificial ground (Koolhaas and Ulrich Obrist, 2011).

Tokyo bay provided an opportunity for the metabolist exploration of the concept of artificial ground.

City on Tokyo Bay, Masato Otaka 1959

Tokyo Bay Project, Kenzo Tange 1960

Ocean city, Kisho Kurokawa 1961

Capsule village, Kisho Kurokawa 1972

Otaka created a plan for a new artificial ground within Tokyo bay. Otaka proposed a massive curved belt of city grids which wouldn’t endanger the coastline. The grid was formed from piers supporting roads, with each block there are four slabs of mass housing offset by blobs of reclaimed land. Otaka stated that the ‘city on the sea will have no complication of ownership,’ highlighting the wider impact of the architecture on society; a strong metabolist principle.

After much economic and demographic analysis, Kenzo Tange (with Kamiya, Isozaki and Kurokawa) designed the most famous and significant masterplan for Tokyo bay. The plan was initiated by the near doubling of Tokyo’s population in 10 years (1950, 5.4m- 1960, 10m), the lack of housing and available land and the terrible traffic situation. Tange believed the centripetal form of the city encouraged these problems and only it’s replacement with a linear structure would resolve the problems. This linear structure would fit over the existing urban fabric. The new structure would consist of bridges, piers, platforms and reclaimed land and extend 80km out of the city into the bay and it’s new opportunities, the new spine consists of several vertebrates each a 9km long unit of 3 decks of looping highways. On these new levels of artificial ground, 5m people would live on the sea within giant A-frame megastructures within which each resident could build their own house. The central axis would contain commercial premises within megastructures of joint cores and hovering slabs.

Kurokawa developed a new plan for Tokyo Bay in 1961, It was planned as cells reaching out into the bay, inside of which are helix shaped megastructures, the forms make organic systems between cars and pedestrians, the roads of each cell (on top of the helixes) together form the city’s highway system. This system is the more incremental than others.

Carrying on with the ideas of components plugging into frameworks, Kurokawa’s proposed a new ‘vacation colony’ of programmed leisure capsules embedded into a framework of scaffolding (a new artificial ground), the artificial ground and framework were produced in order to protect plant life on the ground in Usami (southwest of Tokyo). The vegetation acts in a similar way to the complex urban fabric of the city, therefore the necessity for a new artificial ground.

Metabolist ARCHITECTURE

Precedent

Capsules Metabolism relied on modulatisation and repetition, Capsules became basic components. Kurokawa spent a lot of time researching prefabricated housing in the 1950s and the ideas related to the metabolists obsession with futuristic technology and the pressure on urban space (Koolhaas and Ulrich Obrist, 2011).

The capsule easily plugged into the metabolist frames and structures, adaptable, expandable, repeatable, arrangeable and scrapable.

Sky House, Kiyonori Kikutake 1962

Box-Type apartments, Kisho Kurokawa 1962

Capsule summer house K, Kisho Kurokawa 1972

Kikutake built his family a new home, with the new ‘artificial ground’ 6.6m above the hill slope (due to land ownership complexities), beneath the ‘ground’ is a structure, where Kikutake can hang new capsules as his family’s needs change for example when he had children he attached ‘Move-nets’ to the underside- to serve their needs, when his children grew up and moved out the ‘Move-nets’ were not needed anymore and removed.

After Kurokawa visited Soviet pre-fabricated housing factories in Leningrad and Moscow in 1958 and his 1960 book ‘Prefabricated House’. The Box-Type Apartments contain 4 types of capsules; which can be reconfigured in line with each occupants taste and needs i.e. with the growth of families.

Kurokawa designed a summer house for himself and his family, on a hillside near the town of Karuizawa, Nagano. Even with more space than the city, the ideas of capsules are maintained with the four capsules have the same dimensions as the Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo. Kurokawa intended to reconfigure the capsule layout over time.

Metabolist ARCHITECTURE

Precedent

Artificial ground Metabolism recognised that the land of Japan was not traditionally suitable for large megastructures, as it’s densely populated, unaffordable, mountainous, beautiful or seismically or flood prone. There the conception of ‘artificial ground’- structures that sit above the ground as platforms or columns, creating a interesting interplay between ground and structure (Koolhaas and Ulrich Obrist, 2011).

The capsule easily plugged into the metabolist frames and structures, adaptable, expandable, repeatable, arrangeable and scrapable.

Sakaide artificial ground, Masato Otaka 1962

Stratiform structure module, Kiyonori Kikutake 1972

In Sakaide (southwest Japan), traditional salt production had declined and farmers lived in slum-like conditions. Otaka presents a response to this with a new urban platform 6-9m, with social housing on top of the platform and parking and shops below. Otaka describes artificial ground as an alternative to land reclamation. It is also phased, playing on the metabolist idea of organic growth.

Kikutake developed a ‘Stratiform structure’ an A-frame megastructure which creates numerous levels of pre-stressed concrete artificial ground designed to be inhabited by individual personalised houses. The A-frames could populate the whole of Japan, sitting above the perilous terrain and existing urban fabric, such as roads or railways.

Metabolist ARCHITECTURE

Precedent

Group form Fumihiko Maki was critical of the universal aesthetic of some metabolist projects, specifically megastructures. Maki and Otaka came up with a new typology: group form. Drawing on the ancient urban form of the city anticipating that the control required for megastructure’s success would be reduced. In the group form, each element fits organically together with an unfinished quality. Group forms placed evolution over designed megastructures (Koolhaas and Ulrich Obrist, 2011).

‘It is worth noting that Group Form evolves from the people of a society, rather than from their powerful leadership. It is the village, the dwelling group, and the bazaar which are Group Forms... not the palace complex, which is compositional in character’ Fumiiko Maki, 1964

Group forms were inspired by historic urban layouts.

Shinjuku Project, Fumihiko Maki/Masato Otaka, 1960

Hillside Terrace, Fumihiko Maki, 1969-92

The first exploration of group form contained a district of shopping centres, offices and entertainment venues sat on a platform of artificial ground perched above Shinjuku station in south-west Tokyo. The design rejects the rigid symmetrical compositions that metabolist aesthetics often featured.

Daikanyama, a fashionable district of Tokyo had a sloping piece of land owned by the Asakura family standing in it’s way of development. In 1962 the family asked Maki to develop a longterm master-plan ; the result is Hillside terrace, an organised cluster of buildings; unlike other instant metabolist megastructure proposals. It embraced the surrounding areas and remains low rise, rejecting the scale and boldness of many megastructures. Group form is realised by careful long-term planning with singular ownership of the land.

Metabolist ARCHITECTURE

Precedent

Floating city Metabolism was a response to the barriers to development in Japan, the principle barrier was Japanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s landlessness- it was a mountainous island with a large population. Metabolism used this as an opportunity; they wanted to create new artificial ground on the ocean through reclamation, piers, platforms and flaoting megastructures or islands. This utopian vision could be understoof in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s context of climate change (Koolhaas and Ulrich Obrist, 2011).

Japan had little land available, therefore ocean based cities were seen as an opportunity to overcome this issue.

Disaster prevention city, Kiyonori Kikutake 1961 Kikutake was frustrated with flooding which was commonplace in the Koto ward of Tokyo, an area very near sea level. Kikutake proposed the construction of elevated grids on six-meter high stilts to house new artificial ground above the existing urban fabric, each grid was to be 200x200m and could house 20 storey buildings.

Megaforest A key feature of many metabolist proposals was the forest like megastructures that would form a new canopy of artificial ground over the existing urban fabric of the city. The megaforests create new forms, which diagonal as well as horizontal and vertical elements, reaching across space. Kikutake wanted to separate from the horizontal city (Koolhaas and Ulrich Obrist, 2011).

New vast megastructures could transform the city into a vertical one of artificial ground (Tokyo 1960 above- a horizontal city).

Clusters in the air, Arata Isozaki 1962 Isozaki proposed a megastructure which would be treelike, linking with other megastructures over the existing urban chaos of Shibuya (Tokyo), the cores act as trunks, cantilevers act as branches and housing units as leaves.

Metabolist ARCHITECTURE

Precedent

Unicore/Joint core Metabolism didn’t just ‘colonise’ the land and sea but attempted to colonise the other available space; the sky. They explored this by reinventing the core- as a stand alone tower which can have units/capsules plugged into. Several cores could support a new urban system above the existing city. The systems re-examines the city as a three-dimensional network of spaces (Koolhaas and Ulrich Obrist, 2011).

The towers or cores create artificial ground within the uncolonised air.

Tower-Shaped Community, Kiyonori Kikutake 1958

Tsukiji Plan, Kenzo Tange 1964

Shizuoka Press and Broadcasting centre, Kenzo Tange 1967

Nakagin Capsule Tower, Kiyonori Kurokawa 1972

This large concrete cylinder acts as a core with up to 1,250 living units plugged into the core, like leaves on a tree providing living space for up to 5000 inhabitants. The new units could be integrated into the tower via cranes, and therefore have the possibility of reconfiguration, expansion, adaptability and demolition.

Tange developed this project for the Dentsu advertising firm, looking at the urbanisation of the building, with a network of expandable office megastructures interlocking on many levels with large 32 metre spans between core towers; with roads running underneath this artificially created levels.

This realised project features a single infrastructural core in the dense, expensive downtown Tokyo district of Ginza. The tower’s spatial units which are programmed for office space are attached to the core, they were intended to be replaced, demolished, reconfigured, expanded or changed; though they have never been.

The Nakagin capsule tower plays upon Kurokawa’s previous works which played with capsules and contained 2 cores with 144 capsules plugged in, also located in the downtown Ginza district. The tower was meant to provide homes for bachelors or as alternatives to hotels. They were also used for extra space for studies or playrooms. The capsules are the same with built in technology and furniture, merging functions into one but programmed differently.

Development

Frame

I started to further explore the metabolist typology of cores and how a core could become a public space instead of just a service and access route.

Development

Frame

I also started looking into the inhabitation of the frame, how it could be inhabited with additions, services and linkages.

Development

Frame

Breaking the modernist grid This new typology could overtake Karposh, redefining its very spatial quality and breaking the modernist parkland grid.

The executive structure of the commune brought together delegates of several organisations of the city, from worker’s/ labour organisations to citizens, sociopolitical, localities and academic groups; all these delegates are consulted and enact pressure on the commune. Skopje contained 5 communes, each with chambers of 700 delegates and most with appointed officials working in urban planning. But due to this significant bureaucracy; planning decisions were overwhelmingly political. Communes came together in city assemblies to forge citywide spatial policy. Plans were developed a long-term, medium-term and short-term scales; dealing with urban expansion and infrastructure, urban planning and site plans respectively; often leading to complex and contradictory policy (Simmie, 1989).

Town planning was the sole responsibility of the communes/republics; some republics such as Slovenia tried to integrate different types of planning i.e. social with town planning in urban plans. Regional plans are paramount, organising land use, industry location, traffic networks and public services; commune plans must integrate into these.

o vi ob

Yugoslav Planning Principles

Utopia

Yugoslavia was a very decentralised nation. So called ‘Societal Planning’ emerged with economy, social and town planning occurring together. The smallest application of which occurred in communes, the core administrative divisions of the socialist republics.

lin ks

The political nature of planning in Yugoslavia is obvious; therefore the dominant antinationalist, unifying philosophy centre to Tito required architecture to reject traditional vernacular and therefore most subscribed initially to humanist international style and latterly to the purity of brutalism.

The apartment blocks of Karposh are created mixing international style aesthetics with functionalism; International style aesthetics were defined by Hitchcock and Johnson in the 1930s and were based on ideas of Humanism, new revolutions in technology, engineering and building materials and a desire to break away from historical styles and to invent a new functional and equal style; as Le Corbusier said “a house is a machine for living in” rejecting decoration and the power politics associated. Hitchcock and Johnson identified three principles of the style: volume of space, regularity, and flexibility. Buildings must express volume rather than mass, emphasis balance rather than preconceived symmetry, and reject applied ornament. Characteristics of the International Style include: simplification of form, rejection of ornament, and the use of glass, steel and concrete. Buildings were meant to be transparent in design and construction (honest expression of structure), and accept mass-production techniques, such as the pre-fabricated concrete apartment blocks common in eastern Europe (i.e. Soviet Khrushchyovka), to quickly solve the post-WWII (and postearthquake in Skopje) housing need. The machine aesthetic, and functional design were used to create buildings reaching beyond historicism. Common slogans include: ornament is a crime, truth to materials, form follows function. These can easily be seen within the urban fabric of Karposh.

Karposh apartments: Bauhaus buildings, Dessau, Walter Gropius 1920s: Unite d’habitation, Marseilles, Le Corbusier, 1947-52

Brutalism was a descendant of modernism, and was a critical movement in architectural discourse between 1950s to the 1980s. It took on the ideas of functionality and honesty in material and construction. It left concrete and services exposed; taking the, modernist motto ‘form follows function’ seriously. Some such as Reyner Banham see Brutalism as an ethic not just an aesthetic, due to it’s use of civic, public and social buildings. It combined modular repeating elements with a sense of asymmetry forming masses, equating to specific functional zones. The honesty of material is further expressed through it’s revelation of texture: through the wooden planks of the in-situ concrete casting. This idea of hones, people-focused rejection of ornament was embedded in socialist utopian thought.

Brutalism in Skopje, Preston Bus Station, Preston, BDP 1969. Western City Gate, Belgrade, 1977 Mihajlo Mitrović

Quinta Monroy

Precedent

DIY/Incrmental

Enable

People’s needs are unique and cannot merely be met by a single home design as well as people not being able to afford entire houses or fitted out spaces at onego; therefore the following precedents explore the idea of incremental design as well as customisable design.

Elemental 2003, (Iquique, Chile) Elemental’s task was to house the 100 families in a 5,000sqm site in the city centre; which they’ve illegally occupied for the last 30 years. The local government provided a $7,500/family subsidy to cover land, infrastructure and architecture. Therefore only 30sqm/family of space was constructable. The aim was to inhabit the original site, even though it was expensive to maintain the community, transport links, social services and work and education opportunities. The site was not big enough to contain 100 detached homes (only 30 homes would fit). Not even enough row-houses would fit on the site (only 66), it also had issues with new additions blocking light and ventilation from initial rooms. High-rise buildings are efficient in terms of land use but make extensions/ additions impossible. To find a solution to this Elemental didn’t look to build a full house with the available funds $7,500/family but what $750,000 building could provide. But buildings block expansions; except on the ground and top floors. Elemental though of a building that had just the ground and top floor. Elemental needed enough density, (but without overcrowding) provision of space for families to develop- creating units which will be 50% self-built meeting the needs of inhabitants; the building had to be porous enough to allow each unit to expand within its structure. The initial building provides a supporting framework to avoid negative effects of self-construction on the urban fabric over time, also facilitating expansion. Elemental provided the possibility of a middle-income house instead of a completed small house. Within the initial part of the proposals, there was kitchens, bathrooms, stairs, partition walls (the difficult parts of the house). When the budget only covers half the housewhich half do is built. The half that a family can’t easily construct.

This precedent is interesting as basically it provides a supporting structure for the necessary functions of a house; enabling the self-build of the rest of the house to accommodate their own personal needs. This translates into the ideas of the framework/addition economy, I am trying to develop.

Bijlmermeer

Precedent

NL Architects and XVW Architectuur 2017, (Amsterdam, Netherlands) The renovation of one of the largest apartment buildings in the Netherlands composed of restoring the repetitive façades but leaving the flats bare for residents to customise. The Bijlmermeer building was designed in the 1960s by Fop Ottenhof as part of Siegfried Nassuth’s master-plan to the southeast of Amsterdam, but recently the building had became dilapidated, an economically viable renovation plan was needed. The project aimed to see the Bijlmermeer as green, light and spacious. The original building aimed to solve social problems through architecture; it separates pedestrians from cars, with elevated walkways and roads suited to slow and fast-moving traffic. NL Architects and XVW Architectuur’s proposal was titled Klusflat (Dutch for do it yourself) a new housing model within which people renovate their own apartments. The architects renovated only the main structure, and the apartments were left unfurnished; leaving residents to finish them to their tastes, and even combine two or more flats.Future residents could buy the shell for a low price and then renovate it according to their own wishes. Owning an ideal home suddenly came within reach. The ground floor was transformed, previously a ‘dead space’ occupied by store rooms. The store-rooms were moved to floors above, making social spaces and hosting workspaces and daycare facilities. A catalogue of frameworks offers residents glazing options, from sliding doors to recessed frames; a whole and individual spaces at the same time.

This precedent is interesting as it transforms the historic building into a supporting frame with social spaces and community facilitates which can be appropriated and transformed by residents to meet their needs within the individual apartments. This translates into the ideas of the framework/addition economy, I am trying to develop.

NAked House

Precedent

Naked House/OMMX 2018, (London) OMMX and not-for-profit developer Naked House developed an affordable housing model: homes stripped back to their necessities. They’re intended for first-time buyers for reduced prices: enabled through the saving building costs with the minimal fit-out of a bare shell with no internal walls, floors or finishes; future-proofed for adaptation. OMMX developed designs for 22 homes on 3 sites in London. The catalyst development provides a mix of homes for single occupants and families in Enfield. Squeezing 5 terraced houses and 2 apartments onto a small site. People with salaries under £90,000 can sign up for a home with priority given to low-income and first-time buyers living/working in the area; with payment over time available and covenants placed on the site to make the houses affordable even for resale. Each shell consists of a 50sqm double-height and openplanned space. Concrete foundations below the gardens/ integrated footings for a second floor, allow future expansion; taking inspiration from Elemental’s incremental projects. Loft/ rear extensions add 37sqm. Materials are robust, cheap and DIY friendly; with block-work walls and ply surfaces are left exposed within the houses. Naked House also reduces the costs/waste of changing a newly bought house into the resident’s own taste. The organisation has received mayoral backing/funding and is looking to secure more plots across London.

Naked house hopes to alleviate the housing crisis of London; like my ideas could try to do in Skopje. The idea of providing a supporting ‘shell’ for future ‘DIY’ development is reiterated, like the precedents in Amsterdam and Chile.

Household Necessities Wate r Clean wat er a nd Se wa ge Heati sy ng st em s-

onmentAl r i v En RTABLE TEMPERATUR

F O

TY FE SA E AC sP

S UP PLACES TO MEE E T/ RO GR AG / R E E D ed SOCIAL

vARIED OPP OR US E D T B YS UN ING IT L bALAN ES IE C /G E (g well eN m an ag

Activi ty

ES TO MEET /GR PLAC EE T

Enab le/ fu tu re

Ext ra kitc he

Co m f or

requirements

ce pt

Necessities

f oo pr

Sociable

Placemaking?

Light ing an do ut le ts Con

an d

ai r

c, et

IN T

he at in g

er ow sh

vI S

Pa r

Elec tric ity

nk s

nd a

w c/ si

ng ni io it nd o

HT/AIRY lIG

eA S

d people able dis or AND T O H OUG ef pER HR bl CE TT anspo r si r t P t pED GE TI lic es ON E ub S TO /p TR Y &NEAR) CL IA ng AR E A N ki (F NI NE LE G EDGES IB TIN ES ER ENITIES SE AT AM R.

A ac c

N EE gR

Energ y ef fic ien t

le sib es c

O MF cO

24HR US

Framework

GOOD ENVIRONMENT

G IN

Supporting

I tried to understand what would make the new frame typologies have a good environment and what household necessities were necessary.

Apartment communities creating new frame communities

BIRTH OF THE FRAME

The incremental process of young people leaving home led to me thinking how the frameworks could grow from the existing apartment blocks both physically and organisationally.

Development

FINAL NEW TYPOLOGY

This has developed further into my new typology with the organisational growth from the parent block to the child forms, with the confined youth of the parent block growing towards the child forms through the umbilical pier, this is also reflected spatially and infrastructurally.

1. Existing Apartment

2. People of Apartment (In need of own home/s) 2. People of Apartment (In need of own home/s)

3. New framework inhabited by Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s additions

DEVELOPING THE FRAME

INNER FOCUS

Access

I focused on a single apartment block to develop the project further. Access

New Parking

New Core Social Space

Heating Tank (Top Floor)

Service Routes

Existing Restaurant (LINK) Access

Walkway Water Tank (Top Floor) Infil volume

Seating

Existing Landscaping

Stairs Solar Panels (Roof)

Framework Framework

New path to tower

Infil volume

Solar Panels (Roof)

New Parking

Stairs Service Routes

Crane

New Core Social Space

Seating Walkway New Parking

Green Edge Access (LINK) Retain Connection

Heating Tank (Top Floor) Water Tank (Top Floor) Access (LINK) Retain Connection

Access (LINK) Retain Connection

DEVELOPING THE FRAME

INNER FOCUS

Access (LINK) Retain Connection Access

I chose this apartment block, which sits on Daskal Kamche Street to focus on as it was tpical of the Karposh apartment typology, It features a series of domestic and developer additions as well as sitting next to the prominent garage typology and being one of the most opportune areas- as it site next to open space (underused carpark and garage space). Its a prime example of the altered modernist urban development within the underused â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;parklandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; space.

Existing Landscaping

Framework

Heating Tank (Top Floor) Service Routes

Access (LINK) Retain Connection

Access

Solar Panels (Roof)

Stairs

New Core Social Space

Green Edge Walkway

Crane Infil volume

Seating

Water Tank (Top Floor)

Access (LINK) Retain Connection

Access

Heating Tank (Top Floor)

Infil volume

Service Routes

New path to tower Framework Water Tank (Top Floor) Walkway

Seating

New Parking Stairs

New Core Social Space

Solar Panels (Roof)

Enabling community

New interventions

A frame could share services, enable incremental construction, and be linked in a redefined landscape.

New boiler/heating infrastructure (shared) 1:500

New water tank/infrastructure (shared) 1:500 1:500

10m

50m

1:500

10m

New crane (shared) 1:500

50m

New solar/electric infrastructure (shared) 1:500 1:500

10m

50m

1:500

10m

50m

Enabling community

New interventions

New shared services 1:500

New infill volumes 1:500 1:500

10m

50m

1:500

10m

New framework 1:500

50m

New walkways 1:500 1:500

10m

50m

1:500

10m

50m

Enabling community

New interventions

New paths/links 1:500

New seating 1:500 1:500

10m

50m

1:500

10m

Trees 1:500

50m

New parking spaces 1:500 1:500

10m

50m

1:500

10m

50m

New cores and social spaces 1:500 1:500

10m

50m

New paving 1:500 1:500

10m

50m

Formed concrete

frame making

Enabling community

New interventions

I also started to explore the material dynamics of the frame

Form concrete frames

Use found/cheap objects as form-work

Enhance link between creator community and new framework community

Board fabric windows doors rope leaves fabric

y nit

Reuse materia ls or use materials to be used in new infill

Formed concrete

DEVELOPING THE FRAME

INNER FOCUS

Heating Tank (Top Floor)

Service Routes

I further developed the inner focus Access

Infil volume

Existing Landscaping

Solar Panels (Roof)

Framework Framework

New path to tower

Infil volume

Stairs Service Routes

Crane

New Core Social Space

Seating Walkway

Green Edge Access (LINK) Retain Connection

Heating Tank (Top Floor) Water Tank (Top Floor) Access (LINK) Retain Connection

Access (LINK) Retain Connection

DEVELOPING THE FRAME

INNER FOCUS

I further developed the frame but I felt my frame designs were too intrusive and unresponsive, though the strong link towards the apartment block was interesting, the idea of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;skybridgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; or pier extruding from the apartment block. A entire serviced infrastructure is developed to accommodate the entire co-living experience.

DEVELOPING THE FRAME

INNER FOCUS

Services and public spaces could be shared between the residents, whom occupy the frameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s infill. The frames could be connected via skybridges, which also provide access to the infills, though the extent of them as shown may not be necessary.

Use Shared (Services, spaces)

Sky bridges (Connect communities)

Infills (Residential)

Family +7 P4

Family +7 P2

heat +20

Family +7 P3

share/shop +0

Family +7 P1

Single occupancy +14.5 P2

skybridge +4 +12

Co-living infill +6.6 P3

social space +0

share/bar +12

Co-living infill +4 P1 Co-living infill +6.6 P3

Co-living infill +4 P2

solar +20

Social Bar space +12

Live-work +4.6 P2

Crane +20

Doesn't care

Single occupancy +16.5 P3

Live-work +4.6 P3

Live-work +4.6 P1

Infills (Residential)

water +20

Sky bridges (Connect communities)

DEVELOPING THE FRAME

INNER FOCUS

Wants space/

grandparents want to link with family, looks after kids etc.

Wants space/ community focused

Phases> Shared (Services, spaces)

The frame would provide an opportunity for phased inhabitation, phased/incremental construction and phased services.

I further developed the inner focus, adding further details and sculpting the frame towards the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s context and environment.

Single occupancy +12 P2

new ways of living

Precedent

In line with the idea of social shared living within the frame I started to investigate co-living precedents and ideas: a new social and affordable idea- easily interlinked towards the ideas of making Karposh affordable and the dynamics of young people moving out from their parents. Co-living

Vivahouse, Design Haus Liberty 2018

Innovation relies on tapping unique selling points and gaps in the market resources. Traditional notions of “private” and “public” space are disappearing under the influence of the sharing economy and technological advancement. Co-working has matched excess office resources with start-ups, without the resources to establish their own office. Companies such as WeWork has exploited this trend, linking technology and real estates, subletting space to users and providing office management, i.e. printing and drinks. This has inspired the growing co-living movement, with small apartments or rooms sharing cleaning services, laundry and utilities. It relates to the Micro-rental movement: a company rents a large multi-room unit, creates communal spaces and sublets individual bedrooms out to people on a short-term basis. Co-living companies don’t own the property themselves but instead act as property managers.

Vivahouse is a prefabricated modular housing system; taking vacant commercial premises into co-living units, the first example was at a disused Whiteleys Shopping Centre in London. The aim is to place units across London, taking the high levels of empty shops and re-purposing them to create affordable homes. The system of identical units is designed to be built in under 24hrs inside existing buildings to create private rooms with shared facilities. It aims to reduce construction time and cost by 70%. The system can have more temporary or permanent applications; with rent aiming to be affordable. It aims to disrupt the existing housing market and help solve the housing crisis.

They are designed to be social, mobile and affordable, focused on millennials, sharing spaces, such as kitchens, living and working spaces, though some share even more, from cinemas to gyms and gardens.

Co-Living

Co-living is a reaction to a new sociable era and the affordability of housing.

New Ground Co-housing, Pollard Thomas Edwards 2016

Norn, 2018

Norn is a network of members-only co-living spaces across Europe and the US, so far it’s opened properties in London, Barcelona, Berlin and San Francisco, where members can stay for up to six months; It aims to foster connections between its residents by hosting weekly social gatherings and dinners. The London branch is located inside a Georgian terrace, while the Berlin base is set within one of the city’s signature L-shaped flats. A It’s one third social housing and shared facilities traditional Catalonian family home houses to are within a common house containing a the Barcelona branch, while a Victorian townmeeting room, kitchen and dining area. There house the San Francisco property. are also laundry, guest and parking facilities. Each property contains communal areas and Each of the flats has its own balcony or sleeps four-to-five people. Each property patio, as well as garden access. The new include antiques and are specifically styled. community hope to combat issues of isolation and loneliness which affect older people, with neighbourly help and possibilities to share carers. Britain's first co-housing project for older residents in London comprises brick mews houses around a communal garden. It’s women-only housing on the site of a former convent including 25 apartments in a T-shaped plan around a shared garden. The brief was clear: sustainable homes, with shared facilities with a sense of community.

Garden House, Noiascape, Teatum+Teatum 2018 A co-living space in Hammersmith, which includes informal work and living spaces. Garden House is a three-bedroom terraced mews house in west London. Designed after a survey to find out how millennials use their homes, trying to increase the time spent at home, facilitating home-working and intense use. The interior of the building was re-organised in a bid to increase the time spent at home creating “fluid, open and interconnected spaces” that allow residents to socialise, work and spend time alone in without being restricted to their bedrooms. Built in furniture allow “Tenants can move in with just a bag, the furniture is part of the landscape.”

new ways of living

Precedent

Collective Old Oak, PLP Architecture, 2016 The world's largest co-living block contains 550 bedrooms in London, operating like a cross between student housing and hotels. It aims to provide so many services that you wouldn’t need to leave the building It aims to provide residents with more sociable lifestyles, for a more affordable price than the average studio flat. By integrating a co-working space, restaurant, gym, cinema, spa and launderette, the residents will want nothing giving people flexibility and convenience. The 11-storey tower sits in Willesden Junction, London and also features a large roof terrace and parking. Old Oak is targeted at young, single professionals aged between 21 and 35 and rent starts at £225 per week. The figure covers utility bills, council tax and Wi-Fi, as well as concierge, cleaning and security services, and linen changes. Most of the space is divided into “twodios”, two en-suite bedrooms sharing a small kitchenette, but there’s also studio flats. Each floor has a larger kitchen with dining table, is shared between 30-70 residents, and themed communal living spaces. A restaurant and co-working spaces are located in the lower floors of the building.

Share House LT Josai, Naruse Inokuma Architects, 2013 Naruse Inokuma Architects designed a co-living house in Nagoya, with communal areas for eating, cooking and relaxing, encouraging residents to interact. The project highlights co-living’s international appeal. They based this new build on the principles of communal living and the need “for complete strangers to naturally continue to share spaces with one another.” Bedrooms with identical dimensions are arranged across the building’s three levels, with the voids between them housing an open plan living, dining and kitchen area. The 13 bedrooms each are 7.2 square metres and with shared spaces a total of 23sqm/residents compares with many one-room apartments.

Gap House, Seoul, Archihood WXY 2015

WeLive, WeWork 2016

Roam Co-living, Bali, Alexis Dornier 2015

This residential block takes the form of a cluster of four buildings, with each facade featuring a gabled profile in one corner, it provides student-like accommodation with shared facilities for young professionals as well as outdoor and communal space (balconies and central courtyard), often neglected in residential developments in the area. The gaps created by the balconies bring sunlight and natural ventilation into the building.Common spaces such as the living room, kitchen, and dining area are shared and stacked alternately through the levels of the building. On the ground floor, a U-shaped block contains a shop and stairwell, and wraps three sides of the courtyard, giving it privacy.

WeWork’s first co-living project sits in New York's financial district, ran by sister company WeLive, a cross between student housing & hotels.

German architect Alexis Dornier transformed several old apartment blocks in Ubud, Bali into a communal housing development. It has rooftop lounges, swimming pool, communal kitchen and a barbecue garden. He aimed to create community mixing private spaces and communal areas. Occupants rent serviced rooms. He aimed to create spaces that combine traditional Balinese design with worldwide domestic details. Most communal areas are located on the open-air roof space, beneath a new canopy. These spaces include a sunbathing deck, a cafe, wine bar, restaurant, lounge and yoga area playing on the traditional Balinese compound.

Four floors of the building were already co-working space operated by WeWork, with shared amenities for workers. Now 200 residential units accompany it applying similar ideas of sharing, making housing more sociable and affordable. It aims to be community-driven providing shared living spaces. Kitchens, lounges and bathrooms are shared within units, while large communal areas are for buildingwide use. It is relatively affordable starting at £980 per person for a space in a shared unit including furniture, bed linen, towels, kitchenware, internet and cable TV. Communal events for residents are also planned, held in the building’s shared spaces.

It is also designed to grow, adapt, age and change with the opportunity to add new components, i.e. meeting rooms, offices, lecture rooms, canopies, bridges and more garden space.

new ways of living

Precedent

Live-work For a long-time, working at home was reserved for artists or novelists but with the advance of communication and technology and the rise of freelancing has led to several people to work from home. This has led to the remoulding of traditional homes to better serve working within them; they often need to be larger and include spaces to separate working and living.

Artist’s House, Apparata 2018-

LA Loft, CHA:COL, 2017

House Flagey, Brussels, B-ILD, 2015

Apparata designed a new affordable housing scheme backed by artist Grayson Perry, specifically for artists The proposal features a community arts centre, studio spaces, and 12 affordable flats.

CHA:COL renovated an apartment in Los Angeles for a novelist and a game designer to live and work in. The apartment was divided into a private area and a combined kitchen, lounge and study. Services, timber posts and ceiling beams were left exposed.

A wooden staircase connects the two floors of this penthouse apartment converted from two flats into a single home with a workspace for an lawyer. Tough the intention was to create a fluid working/ living space. The spaces were designed to take the most advantage of the views across Flagey square with wide floor-ceiling windows puncturing the facade. The floors are connected by a curving staircase. Communal work areas are located behind the glazed facade, while more private areas are contained in the back of the property behind frosted glass panels. The rooms are demarcated by materials, with wooden veneer for the staircases and built-in cabinets, green marble for the passageway to the terrace and deep blue mosaic tiles for the bathroom.

Driven by arts agency Create London; Perry describes it as ‘...golden opportunity for artists who want to work with the public. With the right artists working in a real place with real people, who knows where it will go? It’s a new artistic model.’ It aims to provide artists with affordable housing in return for he artist’s running the community centre. The apartments are designed or artists specifically with large openings, good ceiling heights, generosity of space and a high level of adaptability.

LIVE-Work The rise of technology and increase in freelancing has led to more people’s homes becoming their workspace as well.

Custom-made carpentry defines the kitchen in the combined area, and separates the lounge from the work space, with the new piece of furniture containing a writer’s desk as well.

new ways of living

Sharing spaces

Co Li -l ve iv -w ing Co or Li -l v iv k

ha t

w ing or k

Pa r

ca n Sh

ita Gy g ckai m t ro nt Le tn fa ba ch om c c s tu r in en sp il SH i P r h t a a Me Sh ie e b a r a s ro op ar et Di kin bi gu rb W in nin g C o t G e ec g g om an ym m e? ha st ki ro r L u tc fa m b e t ts e om o ct un he csi ar ca om u ar sp lw n i S i r t tiim a ea y e Ha ba esm n D ro c B r in inin in C cr r at en g om bec om Pa e h hr tr g Me e S pom so ue ab ro rk ho at? oo e et u gu oln M ci ive in ar p sw o i i n g ms a m t ity Gy im es or e g a l s a ki mm t t r c s n L B tc u oo fa e pa b in ec c e a La ts di re he Ci ci re cae thr ntr m M tu arg p S o li u sp s l n ho n ee nd oo o SH iti oocoe st tiv em s M a ke ba criae r es t p au l ry e ms -w i o a a Di n l r st ly ni g ra rke re or be sopo Co ro ud ng m r L i a c n t k mm au u oo ? Grae omCin Yoios c Me t Sh lcih ro sp nde a e co s r e u m o g e k sw e t m om ni ac daeu lo a a tin p -w enl ty ry re im a u n g r e or ba roa re kit y an ng mi ro D Ba cG k e o rb ng cr Y c i a t n e n om i th atr m og sp Co h n e ec e po so ac ro rde lo at a n g m ue a u ol M n ci ive e om mu ba ro ng re al D o ar r s o s i n a e be m renin Co tu sp ity ea La c g di ac mm Ci ue re Me c Sh os ro l un B n e un co cr ik om at en st em ar op et dr au i hr tr t -w e in e e a y so y a a l g ra or ro c oo e t ki y Ba c ro ive en cr nt tc k Ga o i t Y ms a hr tr om sp ela he st so rd m l og e a o s t n ud c ivpea ce en ou a a om La ba ial ng re io c s s u Di teu rb sp s nd a c e ni C L o di ng om auec ac r o w y s co ro mu ndue e or ro r a om ni w y k G r o ty r e or ar m sp a o k G ca om l d ac B e o cr sp at en n r u e l tr ac hr d ea ng ou so en e e o t ng e ci iv o al

Co-living and live-work precedents indicate that the future of housing is focused on sharing domestic and community services to increase sociability and affordability; looking at the precedents above, services and spaces which could be shared include.

sp La ac un e co dr -w y or ro k Ga o sp rd m l ac en ou e ng e

of new additions

Location

From the frame

Constructing

I then started to explore how a frame could be built, simply by the makerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy and with simple available material incrementally.

1. Construct blocks

I analysed how the new forms could sit more unobstructivly into the landscape, ensuring light access minding trees and obstructions and started to analyse how the forms interact may with the parent blocks, taking queues from precedents, juxtapositions and ideas of connection.

5. Fix Insulation and board/flooring onto joists

Not to Scale

Apartment Tower

Cafe

Opportunity over parking area, take over some spaces.

Parking 2. Use blocks to construct frame

6. Attach wall & ceiling steels and joists to base/frame

Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments and existing restaurant Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor. Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments

Daskal Kamche Street Apartments

Garages

3. Insert steels into frame

7. Fix Insulation and board/roof onto roof joists

4. Fix joists between steels

8. Contain steels/joists and attach roof.

Un-buildable Ground Floor Garages reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Ground Floor Parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments

Opportunity over garages.

of new additions

Location

The section highlights opportunities for the new form/ frameworks locations

Not to Scale

Un-buildable Block out light Un-buildable Block out light

Apartment Tower

Garages

Daskal Kamche Street Apartments Parking

Un-buildable Too many trees/ near apartments Un-buildable Ground Floor Garages and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor Opportunity over parking area/ garages

Un-buildable Too many trees/ near apartments

Un-buildable Ground Floor Landscaping and street reduce opportunities on ground floor

Opportunity over parking area/ road

of new additions

Location

of new additions

Location

How the forms may sit in response to the site context? N Not to Scale

Not to Scale

Apartment Tower

Cafe

Daskal Kamche Street Apartments

Garages

(t-b) Lebbeus Woods (Walls of Change, Havana, 2010) Kenzo Tange (Tokyo Bay project, 1960)

Un-buildable Ground Floor Garages reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Ground Floor Parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments Opportunity over parking area, take over some spaces. Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments and existing restaurant Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor. Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments

Parking Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Opportunity over garages.

STRIKE THROUGH APARTMENT BLOCK AND INSERTION OF FORMS AT END OF STRIKE

Apartment Tower

Cafe

Opportunity over parking area, take over some spaces.

Parking

Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments and existing restaurant Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Daskal Kamche Street Apartments

Garages

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments Un-buildable Ground Floor Garages reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Ground Floor Parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Opportunity over garages.

NEW FORMS SAT IN parallel to existing apartment block

of new additions

Location

of new additions

Location

N Not to Scale

Not to Scale

Apartment Tower

Cafe

Parking Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Daskal Kamche Street Apartments

Garages

Apartment Tower

Cafe

Opportunity over parking area, take over some spaces. Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments and existing restaurant Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Parking Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Daskal Kamche Street Apartments

Garages

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments

Lebbeus Woods (Walls of Change, Havana, 2010)

Un-buildable Ground Floor Garages reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Ground Floor Parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Opportunity over garages.

NEW FORMS SAT IN parallel to existing apartment block with several links to existing apartment block

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments

Un-buildable Ground Floor Garages reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Ground Floor Parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Opportunity over garages.

NEW FORMS clashing against apartment block and exploded parallel

Housing

of new additions

Provision development

Location

Cafe

Opportunity over parking area, take over some spaces. Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments and existing restaurant

Parking Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Daskal Kamche Street Apartments

Un-buildable Ground Floor Streets and parking reduce opportunities on ground floor. Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments

Garages

Un-buildable Ground Floor Garages reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Un-buildable Ground Floor Parking reduce opportunities on ground floor.

Opportunity over garages.

DECIDED FORM: NEW FORMS SAT PERPENDICULAR NEXT TO LINEAR STRIKE THROUGH STAIRWELL. RETAIN BEST LOCATION (SITE CONTEXT), WHILST RETAINING PHYSICAL CONNECTION TO EXISTING APARTMENT BKOCK

Yugoslavia

Apartment Tower

Un-buildable Too many trees/near apartments

Yugoslavia had a unique system of housing ownership, with some privately owned homes and some state provided homes- though most where under what was called social ownership, within the ‘social sector’. The basic organisations of associated labour and enterprises were the primary elements of this social sector. Initially postworld war II, the government itself built mass, low-cost, repetitive apartment blocks. They were built by state enterprises, financed by the state and allocated by the state, but in 1953 housing was decentralised to the individual republics of Yugoslavia. In 1965 the Yugoslavian economies reformed introducing market mechanisms into the centrally planned economy. Enterprises are granted significant autonomy in economic decision making, and allowed to allocate parts of there income, they were now also responsible for housing provision for there workers, Other changes included state building firms becoming autonomous and financing being gained from commercial banks not state funds; Enterprises also gave there worker’s loans for purchasing housing or construction. Enterprises had responsibility for providing rental accommodation for their employees; rental accommodation assured employee benefit. Though enterprises controlled allocation and construction, municipalities still set rent rates and maintained apartments and tenants had significant rights; this typology of enterprise rental housing was known as social housing. After the new constitution of 1974, Enterprises were replaced by Basic Organisations of Associated Labour (BOALs), defined by social ownership of companies, self management was expanded from companies to communities. Self managing interest communities were established to define welfare programmes. Within housing self-managing interest communities for housing (SHCs) were established. Within each municipality, enterprises elected their delegates to the SHC assembly, which organises and supports programmes to provide homes for people who don’t get provided houses through their employment, for example retirees, unemployed or employees of enterprises with poor housing provision. These programmes took the form of either ‘solidarity flats’- produced and allocated to those in need, or through ‘mutuality’- the provision of loans or grants to those people or enterprises in need. SHCs and there activities are paid for by obligatory payments from the enterprises located in the said municipalities. SHCs also produced longterm master-plans to manage housing and renovation within the municipality. Most social housing became privately owned, with solidarity apartments constituting most of the rental sector by 1990. Private ownership was limited to 2 properties, therefore private rental was uncommon. Enterprise accommodation was allocated according to merit and need, but mostly meant that those with the highest professional jobs got the best apartments. But due to housing being seen as a right and unfair allocation, there were often periods of high demand for rental housing. Also employees of high profit enterprises were provided with better housing than those of low profit enterprises, undermining principles of uniformity, The best housing was provided by state organisations, leading to political nepotism ( van Vliet and van Weesep, 1990).

development

MODEL Issues have arose after immigration from other parts of Macedonia, the elimination of rent control and the lack of housing as well as high heating and electric costs meaning housing is unaffordable and inaccessible for a large section of the country, especially younger low-wage or unemployed people as significant saving and higher than average wages are required to afford homes, therefore young people are forced to continue living with parents until they are married/in long term relationships as 2 incomes-rents are more affordable.

Future?

Post-independence

Even before independence the private sector was becoming more evident in housing provision, though strict rent regulation and ownership limits, tried to ensure affordability, though there were issues of access to housing. Post-independence, Macedonia privatised the vast majority of itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing stock, Privately owned housing now makes up 95% of housing in Macedonia, with only 15sqm on average per person compared to 28sqm in EU nations tough the average apartment is 54sqm not that far behind EU nations at 59sqm meaning that apartments are inhabited by on average 3-4 people compared with 2 in the EU (Habitat for Humanity, 2015).

Inhabiting Karposh is hard, housing is expensive and unaffordable, young people are stuck living with parents or confined to small apartments, the current uncontrolled neo-liberal attitude to housing has failed residents. This project will examine the Yugoslavian model of employer provided housing and form a new typology of community initiated housing which plays on the typologies of change and addition evident in Karposh, from enclosure of balconies to exoskeletons and roof extensions. The new typology creates artificial ground through a network of in-filled frames, conceived from existing apartment block communities. They will transform the current suburbia with community controlled frames for additions to be built from; this should provide Karposh with the capacity and resilience to take advantage of future opportunities from potential EU membership and be insulated from potential adversities.

I did a model to further the development of the form, going back to the idea of the communities conceiving the new forms, I inserted piers through the stairwells, allowing the infills to incrementality grow from them. The model explains this relationship further and I found it helpful at showing the infills inhabitation of the mast-like structures which they could attach to. The model helped me further understand the hierarchies, relationships and spaces of the proposal, It shows the infills as more organic, expansive and unique additions.

of new typology

Exploration

of new typology

Exploration

I have documented the understanding i gained from the production and review of the model, including the prevalent hierarchies, relationships and spaces which have emerged within the proposal,

Incremental 1. Piers 2. Poles 3. Growth from piers

Linkages/Piers

Infills/ Volumes Allocated

Poles/Framework

of new typology

Exploration

of new typology

Exploration

Relationships

Service Linkages

Communities

Capsules

Components

of new typology

Exploration

Hierarchies

Spaces

I started to sketch ideas to develop the design of the capsules further. Looking at several precedents.

of new typology: BRINGING TOGETHER

EXPLORATION

I then took these ideas and brought them together to understand how they worked as a whole within the new forms.

Capsules

Components

Size -Fit within framework -Relate to spatial sizes of existing apartments -Dependent on need/ allocation

Process -Community enterprise set up to build new capsules out of common components, within ‘makers’ economy. Bartering and skillsharing allows cheap construction Material -Accessible -Light-weight -Easy to use -Adaptable -Permanence not necessary -Cheap

Where Made? -Need a large open area to construct the capsules, for the initial capsules this could be done in the open parking area to the north of the initial parent block, then permanently a new fabrication area could be established within the empty open space behind apartments and educational buildings on the edge of the area. Capsule Precedents Metabolism, Model Extraction and Prouvé

Jean Prouvé Precedents (see Prouvé precedent page/s)

-Timber -Aluminium -Light-weight metal frames

Capsule precedents

Components

Jean Prouvé 1901-1984

Structures Jointed Frames

Shell Frame

Jean Prouvé was a French Industrial and Furniture Designer and Architect. He principally used lightweight prefabricated metallic and aluminium design to develop innovative buildings, furniture and objects. From Nancy in North-eastern France, Prouvé trained as a metal smith before attending engineering school in Nancy, this appreciation and knowledge of metal influenced his later work significantly. He opened his own workshop in 1923: producing modern metal furniture of as well as collaborating with some of the leading French modern designers, including Le Corbusier and Charlotte Perriand. His shelving units for the dormitories at the Cite internationale universitaire de Paris, designed with Perriand and the artist Sonia Delaunay in 1952, are wellknown. Jean Prouvé always regarded himself as more of an engineer and constructor instead of a designer. He placed function and structure over form, concentrating on materiality, connections and production. He strove for the most efficient designs, utilising his innovative method of folding sheet metal. In the mid 1950s he began devoting his time to prefabricated architecture, utilising lightweight metal structures and folded aluminium cladding. His ideas and designed have helped me design the capsules to provide lightweight, adaptable capsules- which will allow residents to construct them (through the maker’s economy) and change them in line with their needs (via interchangeable facade panels).

Adaptable Interchangeable façades prefabrication Comfortable

Ferembal House, Nancy, 1948 This building houses Ferembal’s offices in Nancy. The bent steel frame comprise five axial portal frames on a pressed steel floor and held together by ridge beams which support the purlins and aluminum roofing slabs. The prefabricated wooden facade panels slot together interchangeably. The offices were a prototype for post WWII housing The building was technically and functionally proficient and was very adaptable.

Maison Tropicale, 1949 This building was a prototype for large scale modular housing to solve the problem of shortage of housing and civic buildings in French colonies in West Africa; Built in France and transported to Africa. Therefore lightweight and easy to assemble and therefore prefabricated aluminium structures were envisioned as they are easy to construct and dismantle. The house was made to suit the tropical climate of West Africa, leading Prouvé to create a natural cooling system in the design. It’s functionality, rationality and standardisation exemplified modernist ideas; architecture as a tool of social transformation. Rationalization and standardization in design and urban planning were thought to provide solutions to social problems. Often rejecting vernacular technology and design for universal western design and technology; though once shipped to Africa, they became ‘colonial objects’ becoming a symbol of French colonial policies. Though the design has been fetishised; the core programme of providing housing and civic accommodation has ultimately failed due to its nature as a colonial object and its imposition on Africa will no regard for vernacular architecture or technology or in consultation with the native population.

Prototype shown at the Arts Ménagers exhibition, Paris, 1951 Prouvé’s shell type was an exploration in using the fewest identical components to form the structure of the buildings

Efficient

Demountable Shed Frame

Propped Frame

Centre Core Frame

H-type Axial Frame

LIGHTWEIGHT EASY TO InSTALL Easy to construct Economical Comfortable

Transportable Comfortable

Mame Printing Works, Tours 1950 The aluminium and concrete roofs were designed by Prouvé, they are lightweight and easily installed, the windows flood the space with indirect light and the aluminium ceiling reflects the light throughout. Shed Prototype, 1956 Lightweight and efficient, It also emphasises the ease of bending aluminium.

Evian Pump Room, 1956 The shell type emphasised asymmetrical structures, the Evian pumping room used glass walls to provide views across Lake Geneva, with large steel crutch frames and bent metal roofing. École Provisoire de Villejuif, 1957 The school buildings were designed as identical modules to allow for adaptability and efficiency with the dame spans and components, they were demountable allowing them to be used in different places for different uses.

Maison du Sahara, 1958 Prouvé designed a house for European families to easily transport and move around North Africa whilst working in the oil sector, the design is based on environmental comfort, Portal frames hold up the rigid curved roof (designed to minimise the sun’s direct impact on the building). Internal ‘cells’ delineate the space.

Better Days House, 1956 The ‘Jours Meilleurs’ (Better Days) House for Abbé Pierre was designed as an exemplar project for Prouvé‘s mass-produced housing ideas, long lasting, light, economical and comfortable. In 1954; Abbé Pierre called for emergency housing after a child and an old woman froze to death in Paris. Prouvé designed a low-budget prototype of 50sqm including a kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms and living room. A concrete base had a prefabricated steel core housing the kitchen, bathroom, and toilet; supporting a steel beam, upon it, forming the substructure. The shell was made of wooden cassettes and an aluminium roof. It took only seven hours to assemble.

Stool Frame

From looking at the above precedents, I have conceived a checklist of necessities necessary for a capsule which will fit within the child forms.

Vaulted Frames

Prouvé Extend Re-install

Adaptable Quick assembly Community built

Palais de la Foire, Grenoble (Alpexpo) 1967-70 During the 1968 Winter Olympics, Prouvé’s frame was used as a bus station, but later became a exhibition hall, it was constructed to be extendible, the façades demounted, new ‘stool’ units inserted and façades reinstalled.

Youth Centre Ermont, 1967 As part of the Ministry for Youth and Sport’s ‘1000 Youth Clubs’ competition, 5 prototype clubs were built in the suburbs of Paris, this one in Ermont was designed by CIMT and Jean Prouvé. They aimed for a simple, quick assembly and therefore focused on a single 10m vault, using identical members linked at a roof ridge, demountable mezzanines could be inserted into the vaults as well, partitions could also be demountable and adaptable, the children associated with the youth club helped construct it.

Adaptable Interchangeable façades prefabrication Comfortable Efficient/economical LIGHTWEIGHT EASY TO INSTALL/construct Demountable Transportable Extend Re-install Community built

Masts

Components

Process -Masts and piers constructed first throughout site to demarcate expansion horizontally and vertically. Size -Diameter of minimum 30cm, gathered from the Macedonian forests when large enough. Cut to height in line with allocation plan to ensure existing blocks keep light access.

I started to develop the design of the masts, their size, fabrication and material, indicating a simple mast structure, to simply allow for attachment of capsules.

Mast Precedents Telegraph Poles can have large diameters, are easy to construct and support equipment and power lines.

Where Made? -Transported to site and worked on site to create correct diameter and height for specific locations; then raised up and fixed into place on site.

Location of Macedonian Pines Accessible Areas around Skopje Mixed Forest Coniferous Forest

Macedonian (Balkan) PINEs Material -Timber- specifically Macedonian pine trunks, with diameter of roughly 30cm, plentiful supply from Macedonian forests, easy to sculpt for specific sites and constructable for local residents. Pine takes a long time to Grow but not that many masts needed. Mast Precedents Metabolist mega-structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cores act as physical or infrastructural masts to create new â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;artificial groundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

Masts

Components

The masts are made up of Macedonian pine trunks, The pine is suitable as it can achieve suitable heights and diameters.

Macedonian (Balkan) PINEs Pinus peuce

Distribution

Macedonian pines are endemic to the Balkan Peninsula being first categorised as a separate species in1844 in present day North Macedonia. It is the only native pine in the Balkan Peninsula occurring on higher elevations between the northern latitudes of 41o and 43o. The natural range is separated by Vardar river valley. The eastern range extends into south-west Bulgaria and the western part extends into Macedonia, south-west Serbia, south-east Montenegro, eastern Albania and north-western Greece. The mountain ranges where the pine trees occur include the Pirin mountain range (roughly 7175 ha), the Rila mountain range (6230 ha) Central Balkan range (193 ha), Western Phodopes (170 ha) Vitosha Mountain range (104 ha), Slavyanka mountain range (57 ha) Pelister range (2500 ha), Prokletije range (3531 ha) and Shara mountains (433 ha).

Ecology

USE

Macedonian pine is important in the Balkan Peninsula. It has a wide attitudinal range, from sub-mountain to sub-alpine forests. The Pine has high ecological adaptability and produces high yields of wood. There it can be widely used for the afforestation easily on high terrains and protects against erosion. Its wood is soft, light, tight and durable. Pine is commonly used in construction, furniture production and wood-carving. It is extremely durable and the resin is often used in the chemical industry, optics and pharmacy. The local population use the resin to cure wounds, disease and other illnesses.

Macedonian pines (Pinus peuce) reach up to 30-35m in height and up to 50-60 cm in diameter, though they’ve been known to reach over 40m and have diameters of over 1.2m . The tree height reduces drastically in higher elevations. The crown of the tree is narrow, and the form of the tree is pyramidal with short, slightly ascending branches. Once the tree is 40-50 years old, the bark is smooth, darkgreen or greenviolet; then featuring plate-like fissures and becoming a grey to grey-brown colour afterward. The branches are relatively thick, greenish in their youth and then grey is older age. Each brachyblasts (leave cluster) contains five fine needles each and are greyish-green, 50-70 mm long and 1 mm wide. Catkins (Aments), the male reproductive organs are cylindrical and on average 13 mm long, 3.5 mm wide, and yellow. They are situated in groups of 10-15 at the bases of growing shoots. Pine cones take two-years to develop. In the beginning they’re green or greenish-violet, closed and covered with resin granules. In September-October of the second year they reach lengths of 7 -18 cm and widths of 3-4 cm. Cooler mountain climates and higher altitude humidity are the most suitable conditions for the Macedonian pines, occurring naturally The trees grow from 800-900m up to 2300-2400m in altitude, which a lot of Macedonia is included within, it grows the best from 1600-1900m.

Genetics

Due to the 2 different main ranges of the pine. Two forms (ecotypes) are distinguished: var. typica (western part of Vardar River) and var.vermiculata (eastern part of Vardar River). Successful inter-specific have occurred, mixing with other pines. Hybrid seedlings result in more competitive trees with increased growth and resistance to diseases.

Growth of Mean Basal Macedonian Pine diameter area seeds after 50 (CM) (m2ha-1) years

TOP HEIGHT (m)

Height at 10 years (M)

26.7 71.8 18.7 1.3 THREATS

Macedonian pines are generally immune from insect pests and fungus diseases; and is generally more resistant compared with the other conifer species. A substantial reason for this resistance is the severe climatic conditions trees ranges; these conditions don’t favour the development of a number of diseases and pests. Another reason is the high resin content which limit disease due to the resin’s toxic properties. Insects which attack the pines include bark beetles. The Macedonian Pine can be considered resistant to air pollution,

Connections

Components

The capsules will be connected to the piers or ground for access via self-made connections, to allow for personal expression and to easily adapt in response to the adaptation of the panels which make up the capsule’s façades.

Where Made? -The connections will be made with timber by the residents themselves to create simple access routes to the capsules, they can be made within makespaces, for example between the parent block and garages to the south of the parent block, with materials stored in the undercroft of the building’s exoskeletons. Process -Once capsules are inserted into the framework of masts and piers the resid3ent use the timber as a simple material to make connections between the capsules to the piers or ground, providing access.

Material -Accessible -Light-weight -Easy to use -Adaptable -Permanence not necessary -Cheap

-Timber

Size --Dependent on access requirements

Connection

Make space and undercroft storage

TEsting

Spatial

17.7sqm Interchangable Panels for Capsule exterior

Compared to Macedonian average of 15sqm per person For studio apartment with little money available and small allocation.

39.0sqm

Interchangable Panels for Capsule exterior

17.7sqm GF

18.6sqm 1F

Interchangable Panels for Capsule exterior

36.3sqm 17.7sqm Total GF

Compared to Macedonian average of 15sqm per person Compared to Macedonian average of 15sqm per person For 2 person For studio apartment with little money available and apartment with less money available and small allocation. small allocation.

39.0sqm

39.0sqm GF

18.6sqm 1F

36.3sqm Total

Compared to Macedonian average of 15sqm per person For 2 person apartment with less money available and small allocation.

41.0 sqm 39.0sqm 1F GF

Compared to Macedonian average of 15sqm per person Compared to Macedonian average of 15sqm per person Compared to Macedonian average of 15sqm per person Compared to Macedonian average of 15sqm per person For larger apartment For larger apartment with less money available and smaller For larger apartment with less money available and smaller with more money available and larger For larger apartment with more money available and larger height allocation, inhabited by a larger amount of people, bigger height allocation, inhabited by a larger amount of people, bigger height allocation. height allocation. than the 59sqm average Macedonian apartment. than the 59sqm average Macedonian apartment.

Small apartment for single (studio) inhabitation.

Smaller apartment for taller height allocation. Small apartment for single (studio) inhabitation.

Smaller apartment for taller height allocation.

Larger apartment for smaller height allocation

Larger apartment for taller height allocation Larger apartment for smaller height allocation

Larger apartment for taller height allocation

41.0 sqm 1F

Interchangeable panels

Capsules

The idea of the capsules being incremental and reactionary to the needs, wants, finances and situation of the residents leads itself to adopt the idea of interchangeable panels, an idea concurrent with Jean Prouvé’s capsules and the maker’s economy- allowing them to slowly develop their making skills and construct new panels- to swap in for older ones. Some of these panels could fold out to provide more space if necessary.

Concertina window reveal Change window transparency

Door panel Access

Triangle fold-out Additional space

Window panel Light

Pop-out Additional space

Solid panel Wall

Push-out Additional space

Capsule Development

Components

Boat caulking The joints in-between the interchangeable panels are sealed in a similar fashion to boats, with rope-like fibrous oakum, rolled into a rope like string, inserted into the seams between panels with caulking cotton placed upon it and then coated in tar/pitch to seal the joint. The caulking needs replacing regularly, in line with the interchangeable nature of the panels.

Structural cores Interchangeable structural core-rooms provide pre-fabricate spaces such as kitchens or bathrooms as well as acting as structural components to support the frames which hold the panels in place.

Interchangeable Panels Individual panels made by specific ‘makers (i.e. attacher/curtainer)’ out of recycled/available materials. These panels are temporary and are swapped amongst the community, new panels are purchased in line with need, i.e. folding out panels to provide more space, they are unique or produced in small batches. Uniform attachments are affixed to them to attach to the capsule substructure.

Precedents Furniture House 1, Yamanashi, Japan, 1995 Shigeru Ban This house uses large prefabricated built-in furniture pieces as walls and structural components. It reduces materials, cost and time.

Services The services are shared between the new family community. Service routes contain electric, water and sewage infrastructure through the capsules, Hot water is shared between the community with boilers in the parent block ‘s basement. Heating could also be provided via the boilers in the parent block or via wood burning stoves in the capsules but these would have to be smoke-free as pollution is already an issue in Skopje. Insulation is provided within the panels, Natural ventilation occurs as panels contain openings to allow air to pass through the capsules.

Bolted or suspended Capsule held into the masts by suspension or attaching to components held into tracks cut into the masts and bolted into pre-cut holes in the masts- the tracks allow for the capsule to be placed at a variety of heights.

Capsule Section

1:50

Frame Material The capsule deck will be constructed from CLT (Cross-laminated timber) as it’s lightweight, sustainable and has thermal mass. Other framework including panel attachments will be formed from CLT or light weight aluminium or steel framework.

Better Days House, 1956 Jean Prouvé An exemplar project for Prouvé‘s mass-produced housing ideas this project aimed to be long lasting, light, economical and comfortable. The pre-fabricated steel core housed the kitchen, bathroom, and toilet and supports a steel beam and therefore the building’s substructure.