MArch Urban Design RC11 Philippe Morel, Paul Poinet Sarah Abiad Nora Fankhauser KyuSeung Kyoung Jixuan Liu
Socially and structurally f lexible liv ing concepts for displaced people in urban areas
T he Bar tlett School of Architecture UCL MArch Urban Design Research Cluster 11 Computationally Intelligent Architecture for Emotionally Intelligent People Por t folio 2020 NeceCity
1. Background (p. 006)
3. Design Concept (p. 044)
5. Hi
2. Site Analysis (p. 028)
6. Experime 4. Urban Strategy (p. 056)
ierarchy (p. 056)
Content
9. Appendix (p. 302) 10. References (p.308)
8. NeceCity (p. 278)
ents (p. 124)
7. Structure (p. 252)
006
1 .B ac k groun d
Housing Problems for Displaced People Today, we are witnessing a rapid increase in population and, as an result, an ever rising demand for dwellings. However, the construction and subsequent supply of such dwellings does not match the rate at which the global population is growing; double in number! T here are thus speculations that we will need to build 2 billion new homes over the next 80 years to satisfy the global need for shelters (Smith, World Economic Forum). T his shortage of dwellings is problematic, especially for people who f ind themselves hav-
survive in extremely poor living conditions. In 2018, there were an estimated 13.6 million people that were newly displaced due to conf lict or persecution. Among those people, the largest f lux was observed into Turkey, with an immigration number of 3.66 million people from Syria alone as of September of 2019. For this reason, we decided to focus on Turkey, and more specif ically Istanbul, where most of the displaced people are concentrated. By targeting a large moving community, we believe we will be able to provide enough
ing to leave their homes for reasons linked to war, political instability, economic crises, and natural disasters. Displaced people thus end up with no shelter, having to f ind ways to
shelters for many of those people that are currently struggling to settle in Istanbul, or that will be arriving to the city in the future.
Dwelling Shortage expectation
Numbers of displaced people
167,800
Forcibly Displaced Worldwide in 2020
Dwellings Growth Forecast in 2026
321,100 Population Growth Forecast in 2026
79,500,000 13,600,000
Newly Displaced in 2018
37,000 New Displacements Every Day
UNHCR, 2020 010
Why Turkey? Why Istanbul? Turkey
T he Worldwide F low of Refugees, 2019
Istanbul
UNHCR Turkey Factsheet, 2018
400 000 200 000 100 000
Displaced People
011
Istanbul Urban History Istanbul as a transcontinental city is the world’s f ifth largest city in terms of population, and expands over 110 km along the Marmara Sea. T he city centre is heavily populated with a density of 2, 523 people per
square kilometre. Over the past one hundred years, Istanbul has rapidly increased in terms of population, growing by more than 1 million people in 2015 and reaching 15,190,336 people to day.
Gece
Gecekondu* building single storey houses moving to city (for better life +job)
1929
*Gecekondu: turkish word for put up overnight, usually quickly built houses without permission (squatter houses, shanty or slums)
012
<1900
Sudjic Deyan and Fabio Casiroli. “T he City too big to fail,” 2009
Henry prost Master Plan
Illegal Land plot sale, to build own house Emergence of urban sprawl
1950
1953
Global economy Crisis
1945
Declaration of the Republic
increasing land price and unaffordable rent
<1500
Ge t law giving more power to district municipality
1923
1900
<20% urbanised Economy based on Agriculture and food production
Many illegally formed settlements called the â&#x20AC;&#x153;gaeconduâ&#x20AC;? have contributed to the urban sprawl. W ith Turkey as the main target destination, refugees leaving Syria and Afghani-
Gecekondu houses commercialised
Municipalities ecekondu fund ministry of public works
Law to illegalise the illegally built squatter houses
Approval from federal government to establish Law for protection of Real Estate
Land off ice moderating land price 1. Bosporus Bridge
Faith Sultan Mehmet Bridge
1992
1984
2000
Earthquake 1700 died
Neolibralism Housing Policies
1973
1969
Fund for Gecekondu
Illegal Housing ( incl. Kurdish immigrants upper and middlecclass)
2005
ekondu renting + selling
t n
stan are staying in informal settlements lacking proper sanitation and clean water.
Syrian immigrants
Emergence of gated communities
1970
1990
2010
013
Istanbul Urban Data Observing the growing population in Istanbul and the current housing shortage, we aim to develop a housing system that minimises private living space to accommodate people in a relatively small personal space. Simultaneously, it is our goal to create a minimal stand-
ard of living including a water and electricity network. Deriving from the chart below, we will also have to consider the fact that 45% of daily trips of people living in Istanbul are carried out by walking or cycling.
Million People 20
Shanghai Istanbul 15
Mexico City
10
New York London 5
0 1900
‘10
‘20
‘30
‘40
‘50
‘60
‘70
‘80
‘90
2000
‘10
‘20
% Population in 1900
Current Population metropol. region)
Population Growth since 1900
Population Growth 20052025
Istanbul
903 482
12 687 164
1,305%
14
New York
3 437 200
18 815 988
447%
Shanghai
1 000 000
18 150 000 000
London
6 506 954
7 558 900
Mexico City
014
415 000
19 239 910
Urban Age, LSE Cities, November 2009
Peak Density ( p per km2)
Central Area Density ( p per km2)
% of country’s Population living in the capital
68 602
20 116
17.8 %
11
53 000
15 381
2.8 %
1,715%
28
96 200
24 673
1.0%
16%
1
17 200
7 805
12.4%
4,536%
13
48 300
12 541
8.4%
T he age pyramid is showing us that most people currently living in Istanbul are between 10 and 30 years old. T his is an indication that shows the need to create various functions of space according to different age groups. We will have to include enough out-
door spaces for families and children and a variation of commercial areas and pop up stores for young professionals who are set to start their small businesses after settling in NeceCity.
Age Pyramid
80+
Male
Female
70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10-19 0-9
14 %
7%
0%
7%
14%
M
Income Inequality
% of population <20
43
32
£1
45%
50.4
25.6
£2.3
45
20.2
31.7
24.2
55.7
31.9
Metro ticket price
% of daily trips by walking+ cycling
Daily Water Consumption ( litre/capita)
Annual electricity ( kW h/capita)
Annual Waste ( kg/capita)
Annual CO2 emissions ( kg/capita)
Pollution Level (PM10 index)
155
2 267
383
2 720
55
11.4%
607
6 603
529
7 396
21
£1.3
54.4%
439
6 357
343
10 680
73
£7.4
21.7%
324
4 539
459
5 599
21
£0.2
n/a
343
n/a
228
5 862
51
015
Shelters for Displaced People Mosque in Refugee Camp IPA News Turkey, 2019
Renewable Energy in Refugee Camp Bio Energy Consult Jordan, 2017
Flatpack Refugee Shelter, Ikea Foundation Greece, 2019
Solar Panels in Refugee Camp Humanitarian Relief Foundation, Turkey, 2018 016
Issues and Responses T he aim of the project is to plan and spatially organise the growing number of displaced people living in cities, as most of their current accommodations are isolated on the outskirts or outside of cities. T he required need of community in such an environment is leading us to consider having more common spaces as well as to improve their living conditions by adding independent energy and water access points to their living units. We propose a solution adapted to the current situation in cities considering local integra-
Our intention is to develop a modular system around a common space. To allow diverse living scenarios over time, we have to build a decentralised system to better react to social changes and heterogenous tenant compositions. T he structure made of durable materials reflects and reacts to socio-demographic changes; therefore, it needs to be able to be quickly assembled and reassembled.
tion and cultural values.
Responses
Issues
Cortex Shelter Cutwork, Turkey, 2019
Limited Space Marginalisation (Slum)
Spatial Optimisation & Integration (urban areas)
Social Isolation Need of community
Minimise Private Space Maximise Common Space
Lack of Infrastructure Poor living conditions
Independent Energy/Water Access Points
Slow building-process Random Material
Quick & Flexible Assembly Robust Material
NeceCity Turkey, 2020 017
Budget for Temporary vs. Permanent Shelters Although money from humanitarian aid has been used to build new homes for displaced people, we believe it could be invested in an alternative and much more sustainable way in the long run. Organisations are currently using funds to mount temporary shelters such as life kits, emergency tents, and the quick construction of “camps;” when the same amount of money could actually be invested in building dwellings with a much .longer life cycle
“L’unique question, pose Coulombel, est de savoir pourquoi il faudrait se priver d’une construction pérenne, alors que le prix d’une intervention temporaire est aujourd’hui en mesure de la couvrir.” [T he only question, is asking Coulombel, is to know why we should deprive ourselves from a permanent construction, while the price of a temporary one is able to cover it today.] Sibylle V incendon, Architectes de l’Urgence,
T herefore, our main concern would be as such: How can we provide quick-assembly long-term shelters for displaced people, all the while addressing the idea of the formal ( permanent ) and the informal (temporary) aspects of construction?
2019
Humanitarian Aid (M$)
Temporary Shelters 1-3 years Emergency Shelters up to 1 year
Permanent Shelters after 3 years
Years Disaster Budget for temporary vs. permanent shelters Architectes de l’Urgence, 2019
018
Basic Necessities Our aim is to create minimal living spaces for displaced people. Every predef ined response is falling into one of the categories covering basic necessities according to the UNHCR.
NeceCity :
T his classif ication helps us to address basic needs for a human being in terms of personal space, water and energy infrastructure in order to provide an adequate use of space. In addition, these responses represent the foundation of our project.
Minimal living space for displaced people in European cities covering the basic needs of life organised in a socially and structurally-f lexible environment
Min. Individual Space
Spatial Optimisation
Max. Common Space
Well-being/ Sense of Health
Community
Safety
Independent Energy/ Water Access Points
Quick & Flexible
Displaced People in European Cities
Assembly Robust Material
ÂŁ Water
Energy
Food
Shelter
Affordable
019
Basic Necessities for Water, Energy & Space For the use of water and energy, we made calculations according to the minimum consumption. T he variables for water use are divided between Hand-wash dishes (4%), Toilet (22%), Bathroom hot tap (7%), Garden (1%), and Other cold taps (41%). T he volume for the water tank is calculated for one person and is gradually adapted for the size of each household.
For the energy consumption of one person, we considered the usage of electricity for a light bulb, the charging of cell phone, laptop, power bank, cooling and heating in a single day. For the use of space, we referred to the numbers from UN Habitat for Turkey and adapted them to our project. T his project encourages us to think how much space one really needs and how much can actually be shared with others.
1.15m³ (1000ℓ)Water tank
139L /day
Solar panel 5.2m² / 4p
3.52kW h/day Green space 6m² / 4p
1900kcal/day
Living unit 6m² /p
6m 2 /p
020
Solar Panel Water Tank Green Space 021
Hierarchy of elements Component
Cardboard Bed
Living Unit
Foldable Desk
Single min. 6 m2
Bedroom 6m2
Sink
Toilet
Shower
Double min. 12 m2
Bathroom 2m2
Kitchen 6m2
Double min. 12 m2 Living-Room 6m2
( ) ( )
022
Family ( max 5) min. 24 m2
Cluster
Type A
Type B
8 people
12 people
Interior space 96 m2
Interior space 144 m2
Outdoor space 96 m2
Outdoor space 144 m2
Green Space 6 m2 Water Tank 1 m2 Type A
Solar Panel 1.3 m2 Outdoor Space 48 m2
Cluster Common Space min. 24 m2
Kitchenette 9 m2 Living Room
9 m2
Bathroom 2 m2 Corridor 4 m2
Type B
023
Hierarchy of elements Aggregation
16 - 20 Clusters 128 - 240 people
Aggregation Common Space min. 125 m2
Gym 20 m2 Working space
15 m2
Contemplation Room
10 m2
Laundrette 10 m2 Lounge/Activity Room
20 m2
Classroom 25 m2 Dining Space
024
25 m2
Neighbourhood
128 - 160 Clusters 1,024 - 1,920 people
Public + Commercial Space
Neighbourhood Common Space
min. 23,180 m2
min. 820 m2 Sports Court
250 m2
Office
100 m2
Micro-Agriculture
100 m2
Clinic 150 m2 Social Gathering
70 m2
Workshop 40 m2 Cafeteria 60 m2 Energy Prod. Unit
50 m2
025
026
â&#x20AC;&#x153;Providing necess(C)ity for displaced peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x153;
027
028
2.Site Analysis
Location T he site we chose to work on is located in the south of the Fatih district in Istanbul. It is mostly a residential area with small businesses such as cafĂŠs, restaurants and local shops; but also has a port which acts as a main transit hub between other parts of Turkey and the Marmara sea. It is a coastal site which boasts of many historical and cultural monuments without being overcrowded with tourists. In placing our project there, we hope to form a symbiotic relationship between lo-
Turkey
Istanbul
Fatih
032
cal residents and displaced people through exchange of cultural and retail activities. To achieve that, we will create connections between specif ic existing urban spaces of interest and newly created spaces to strengthen the bond between the two communities. In addition, we will distribute various forms of energy produced in NeceCity to inhabitants of surrounding buildings in order to make the neighbourhood more ecologically sustainable.
Site Analysis We plan to inhabit open spaces in the city without intruding on public places, while still maintaining a certain level of porosity in the urban fabric.
200m
Open Spaces < 250m2
Open Space
Open Spaces > 250m2
To improve the pedestrian network, we are focusing on an average of 5-minute walking distance radius.
5 min
10 min
15 min
200m
Walking Distance
Walking Distance 033
Site Analysis On this map, we are highlighting the parks. T his will be particularly important to make sure that our cores are placed within walking distance from a green zone, to enhance pedestrian circulation.
200m
Parks
Parks
As we did not want to intrude on tourist sites or heritage sites, we chose to intervene mostly on residential areas.
200m
Residential Zone
034
Residential Zone
Site Analysis We considered active public spaces, such as public benches and small squares. T his will help us identify important activity nodes in the urban fabric, as we plan on linking them to our urban strategy later on.
200m
Public Benches
Public Benches
Due to the culture and climate, sitting outdoor in a Café is a widely spread activity in Turkey. T herefore, it was our intention to isolate those places within our selected area.
200m
Café Seating Culture
Café Seating Culture
035
Network Integration T hrough Space Syntax we could analyse the integration of the each street segment around our site. A high Integration ( red ) is representing the street segments which are connected through nodes to many other street segments. In this example for pedestrian
200m High
Low
Integration for Pedestrian
We evaluated as well the integration of street segments for a vehicles, like cars and buses. We can derive that the street network for vehicles is better integrated than the network for pedestrian.
200m
Integration for Vehicle 036
Network Choice As a natural choice people wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t use the coastal area,. A reason for that is the bad connectivity between the city centre and the coastal line, as it is fragmented through the highway, which provides no opportunity to cross by walking.
200m
Most probable choice for Pedestrian
T he main roads used by cars are the ones central. None of the streets along the coastal area are of high use. Our aim is therefore, to develop a more attractive coastal line.
200m
Most probable choice for Vehicles 037
Core Location After identifying the open spaces in the urban fabric, we compared them with the location of public benches and cafĂŠ seating places. Our intention is to connect the abandoned lots or leftover spaces with some active places to render pedestrian circulation more smooth and pleasant.
Open Spaces Connections Public Benches CafĂŠ Seating Culture Open Spaces 200m
Out of many identif ied open spaces, we selected the ones with the highest visibility extent, according to the Isovist optimisation analysis.
038
Core Placement We t r i e d t o b e ve r y st ra t e g i c i n o u r c o re placement, since our goal is to provide every household with basic necessary resources for sur vival and adaptation to a n e w e n v i ro n m e n t . T h e re f o re , w e wa n t e d to cover as much area as possible by ove r l a p p i n g t h e f i e l d ra d i u s o f e a c h c o re ( t a k e n a t 2 0 0 m ) w i t h a n o t h e r, s o a s t o ensure even distribution of energy and purif ied water across the site. To do that, we created a Steiner Tree expansion model
that spans in the residential area as well as into the sea using points that we hand picked in empt y open spaces (abandoned lots, terrains vagues, informal parking lots, intersti tial spaces, etc .). T hen, we placed the cores at the ends of the bifurcated branches of the tree. Follow ing this logic, each core is supposed to be located at a minimum spanning distance from another, thus strengthening the network relationship of the points chosen.
039
Objectives of NeceCity
040
041
Narrative of one displaced family of 4 Type 1: single
Type 2: single
Ty
Plane
Train
Boat
2x type 3
Bus
Walking
1 - Arrival of displaced family to Istanbul
042
4 - Vertical transportation of people and living units through cores
2 - Selection of living unit number an
5 - Placement and customizat
ype 3: couple
Type 4: couple
nd typology through NeceCity App
tion of living units in a cluster
Circulation for automated living unit Circulation for people
3 - Arrival of automated living unit on site through circulation
6 - Integrated life in NeceCity
043
044
3.Design Concept
“Plugged-in NeceCity”
048
Design Approach “City, assembly line of social issues, ideology and theory of the metropolis.” No Stop City Andrea Branzi, 1969
Our design concept starts with the simple idea of the plug. In reference to the socket grid, Andrea Branzi claims in his “No Stop City” that people’s behaviour is restricted by electricity; which we can observe today more so than ever. “No Stop City” is based on the idea that advanced technology could eliminate the need for a centralised modern city. T he human dependence on electricity has become global, and has ever since dictated our day-to-day lifestyle. On the bottom left picture is an example of a group of displaced people gathered around a plug-in charging station at an emergency shelter in Turkey.
No Stop City Andrea Branzi, 1969
A 21st-Century Migrant’s Essentials: Food, Shelter, Smartphone New York T imes, 2015 049
Plug as a system To elaborate on this idea of Plugged-in“ness”, we view the city as a network of plugs and extension cords, whereby we activate urban spaces socially, culturally, and energy-wise by providing resources (such as water and electricity). Architecturally speaking, a living unit can be plugged into NeceCity like any electric device connected to a power outlet. W ith this idea of extension cords, we plan on translating our plug-in logic into a structural system that connects different parts of the city.
• •
Connecting and Activating
•
Increasing Common Spaces
Providing Energy and Water
Power Outlets Extension Cords 050
Composition of Core T he cores, which are considered energy seeds, will be planted in various parts of the site and will be connected to each other through the logic of the Steiner tree ( respecting the shortest path and minimum spanning
tree problems). T hey will thus power the city and ensure equal distribution of water and electricity to NeceCity, as well as to the rest of the existing surrounding buildings.
Water tank Machine room Solar battery storage Elevator
Circulation
Stairs
Open space
Water tank/pipes ( purif ication) Solar pack+panels/electric cables Ventilation shaft 051
Bridging as Connectors We used bridges to connect different parts of the local neighbourhood by linking cores in a network system following the Steiner Tree approach. In addition, we placed each core in a way that the radius it covers intersects with the next, hence maximizing the span of resource distribution.
Bridges connecting cores do not only act as pedestrian walkways, but also serve to carry infrastructural elements such as pipes and cables, to distribute to surrounding residential buildings solar energy and purif ied water collected and stored in cores. 052
Composition of Bridge In order to make the walking experience between cores similar to a promenade, we added plant boxes and chose an alternating wooden faรงade to introduce natural light and air circulation.
Handrail Circulation plank Beam Cross beam
Pipes Column Tie
053
General Material T he main construction material of NeceCity is prefabricated wood, for a quick, easy, and f lexible assembly process. Wooden structures are assembled on site according to optimised data. T he structure can thus be held together by basic butt joints f ixed with nails.
On the other hand, a semi-lap joint system is used to assemble circular and planar material pieces together. In addition, the sizes of components were designed to allow easy transport by trucks and boats.
Basic Butt Joint
054
T he linear-shaped wooden structures are the most basic components; however, when mounted together at the designated location, these simple components can create a much
larger and more complex infrastructure. T his structure system remains f lexible, allowing the shape of each aggregation to be customised according to peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs.
Half-Lap Joint
055
056
4.Urban Design Strategy
Urban Pattern If cores are the power outlets to the plugin system, how can we then make them the centres of connectivity on an urban scale? In his T he Nature of Order, Christopher Alexander states: “T he wholeness of any portion of the world is the system of larger and small-
er centres, in their connections and overlap”. We translate those centres (or seeds) as activity nodes from which our structure starts to grow in a decentralized manner. T hus, we f irst determine our cores and common spaces, and from them allow living units to generate in a modular way.
“A f ield of centres, then, is a nested series of localities that frame one another and variously connect to one another in a pattern of relationships.”
Generative methods in urban design: a progress assessment Michael W. Mehaffy, 2008
A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction Christopher Alexander 1977 060
Connection Theory
Delaunay Triangulation â&#x20AC;&#x153;Delaunay triangulations maximize the minimum angle of all the angles of the triangles in the triangulation; they tend to avoid sliver triangles.â&#x20AC;? T his method has no hierarchy and too many generated connections between points; making it unsuitable for the purpose of our project. Boris Delaunay, 1934
Travelling Salesman Problem Travelling Salesman is the theory used to seek the shortest possible route that passes through each city and returns to the city of origin. T here is no hierarchy in this method either; and the path connecting the points passes through each one in a one-way linear trajectory.
Steiner Tree T he Steiner tree is used to connect points by lines of minimum total length in such a way that any two points may be interconnected by line segments either directly or via other points and other line segments. T here is clear hierarchy, depending on the number of lines connected with each point. T his method is the only one to link points without going through all other points. We came to the conclusion that the Steiner tree would be the most suitable method out of these three for our project, as well as to connect selected points in the city. 061
Urban Network Experiments
Hierarchical T
T he hierarchy network is a where some nodes on higher connections to the next leve tors to other nodes. In our as all areas, but it performed be ity, and optimisation. T he re topology, however.
Mesh Network We considered the energy-distributing cores already placed on our site as the nodes of our network. T he connections, on the other hand, represent the bridges connecting NeceCity to Istanbul, as well as linking the cores together. T he mesh network is a point-to-point network where all nodes are connected to each other on the same level. In our assessment, it proved to be well-connected, f lexible, and robust; as well as showing high navigability and latency. However, one of the main disadvantages to the mesh network is the redundancy of connections, and therefore subsequent lack of optimisation. In addition, the mesh topology requires a high budget for installation and high maintenance in case of failure of one of the nodes.
062
Tree Network
a tree type of conf iguration r levels in the hierarchy have l and act as central distribussessment, it did not excel in etter in connectivity, scalabilesults were not ideal for this
Steiner Tree Network T he Steiner Tree falls under the category of scale-free networks, and has hubs, or nodes with numerous connections, which new nodes are most likely going to connect to. T his topology represents a hybrid system and is used in real-world scenarios and even natural systems. In our assessment, it performed well in f lexibility, robustness, scalability, and optimisation.
063
Network Topologies Assessment In this table, we compare various network topologies against a set of attributes such as connectivity, f lexibility (or the ability to respond to changes in the environment by adapting), robustness (or the ability to endure changes without adapting), scalability (or the ability to accommodate for future growth), navigability (or the average shortest path between the nodes), latency (or delay in milliseconds to send information between 2 points), optimisation, redundancy (or when information is in sent repeatedly both ways undirected networks), cost, and maintenance.
Attributes/Network topology Connectivity Flexibility Robustness Scalability Navigability Latency Optimisation Redundancy Cost Maintenance
064
Mesh network
Hierarchical network (tree)
Scale-free network (Steiner Tree)
065
Overlaid Network Topologies
066
067
Extent of Proliferation in the City
068
069
Urban Grid In order to organise our urban expansion, we f irst started by overlaying regular grids on our site and orienting them following the direction of the pattern of the existing urban fabric and street network. T his example shows a simplif ied version using only 2 overlaid grids.
However, since Istanbul is an ancient city with a very organic urban pattern, we had to f ind an alternative method to eff iciently organise our grid system while still following the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban morphology.
Urban Grid: Aligning the grids with the existing urban fabric
(Right Side) Grid Optimisation: colour coded & adjusted to 15° rotation increments for modularity and standardisation of the model 070
Grid Optimisation T herefore, we used an optimisation tool to retrieve the direction of every block. Starting from the street network, we took points to generate K-means clusters (1) over the whole region. We then analysed the different areas of the city and disregarded some to preserve certain urban qualities such as tourist spots,
archaeological sites ( like the Boukoleon Palace ruins), etc. (2) Finally, we adjusted the rotation of grids (3. + 4.) that we obtained to multiples of 15° in order to render the orientations more controlled and standardised, while still maintaining a certain degree of angular f lexibility.
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
071
Section Concept Diagram - Evolution After setting both our cores and activity nodes across the site, we allow the organic yet organized growth of living units around them. Living units will proliferate horizontally in the city and later into the sea after reaching a certain level of density on site. Likewise, they will expand vertically in layers that bridge over the sea and the existing urban infrastructure (such as the highway and railway) for maximum connectivity within the city.
Over the span of several months and even years, NeceCity will grow in size and expand over a larger area of the site as more displaced people move into Istanbul. Here, we predict the evolution of the permanent (yellow) and temporary ( blue) structures that come with the formal and informal( respectively) development of the project over time.
After 1 year
After 5 years
072
Section Concept Diagram - Evolution
After 10 years
After 20 years
073
Section Concept Diagram - Energy We propose an energy scheme that produces electricity, stores it, and distributes it to NeceCity and residential buildings in the neighbouring area. Istanbul, located at latitude of 41° N, receives a yearly average of 10 sunlit hours a day, which makes it convenient to eff iciently install Photovoltaic Panels (1.3 m² per person) on the roofs of our aggregations. Once the solar energy is collected, it is converted to electricity, stored in Power Packs placed on the roofs of cores, and
is ready for distribution. Upon need, electricity is delivered to households via cables running through the bridges infrastructure. In parallel, we propose a water scheme that retrieves water from the sea, purif ies it, stores it in water tanks placed on the roofs, and distributes it in the same manner, via pipes running through the bridges infrastructure.
Railway Coastal strip
Highway
Existing urban fabric
Sea Production of electricity
Distribution of purified water
Storage of electricity
Energy distribution network (Bridges/infrastructure)
Distribution of electricity 074
Core Energy Distribution By placing a mega-structure acting as a connection network for electricity, water, and pedestrian circulation, we are achieving two things in the neighbourhood: 1) we are implementing an energy distribution system that creates a symbiotic relationship between NeceCity ( providing collected electricity and purif ied water) and the existing buildings in the neighbourhood ( providing roof space
y rg e n
n
io
t bu
ri st
di
for living units and terraces); and 2) by doing so, we are building a sense of trust and inclusiveness between the local inhabitants and the displaced people. In this manner, we would be bridging the intangible cultural gap between the two communities by bridging physical connections between energy-providing cores all over the site.
E
075
Section
076
077
5 . H i e r a r c h y
Hierarchy Organisation In order to organise our spaces, we followed a model of hierarchy linked with our components, living units, clusters, aggregations, and neighbourhoods. T he level of hierarchy moves up, going from most private functions (small scale) to more public ones ( large scale). We specif ically wanted to include spaces that bring communities togeth-
080
er, such as contemplation spaces, micro-agriculture areas; as well as more functional ones such as working spaces. Even though displaced people might not have a choice when it comes to leaving their homes, it was very important for us to make them feel comfortable, accepted, and resourceful in a new environment.
Conceptual Hierarchy In addition, we further studied the organisation of our spaces using coding in Mathematica in order to assign our elements a hierarchical value in each of their respective levels. For our process, we used the concepts
of branching and replacement rules to convert our spaces into a more abstract yet comprehensive computational hierarchy model, whereby we have main spaces branching into smaller elements.
155 444342156 154 153 152 474645 151 48 150 49 149 50 148 51 147 52 146 53 145 54 144 55 143 56 142 41 40 57 141 7 8 39 58 140 9 38 59 139 60 138 10 37 61 137 11 36 62 136 12 63 135 64 134 13 35 65 133 1 5 66 132 67 131 34 68 130 14 33 69 129 70 128 0 15 32 71 127 72 126 2 4 16 31 73 125 74 124 17 30 75 123 18 76 122 3 29 77 121 19 78 120 79 119 20 28 80 118 81 117 27 21 82 116 26 83 115 22 23 24 25 84 114 85 113 86 112 87 111 88 110 8990 109 108 9192 107 106 9394 105 104 9596979899100 103 102 101
081
082
Neighbourhood Aggregation Cluster Living Unit Component
Neighbourhood Level - Urban Scale T he neighbourhood level consists of living units and common spaces for a minimum of 250 people. We calculated the needed size of common spaces, which include functions such as leisure, f itness and work spaces. We not only considered living units, but also of-
084
f ice spaces, as well as commercial spaces. Hybrid programming of living, working and recreational spaces. T he design stands out through the diverse conf iguration of the elements, the functional programming and integration of public spaces.
Neighbourhood Level - Common Spaces
Office Sports court Micro-agriculture
Clinic
Cafeteria
Energy production unit
Gathering space
Common spaces to be added later
085
Neighbourhood - Layout Inside of each grid, we selected cells which coincided with important places in the city, and connected them by using the Steiner tree
086
and closest points method. After selecting these cells, we changed the transparency to f ind overlapped spaces in each.
Neighbourhood - Layout
Sports Court 250m 2 Office
100m 2
Micro-Agriculture 100m 2 Clinic 150m 2 Social Gathering
70m 2
Workshop 40m 2 Cafeteria 60m 2 Energy Prod. Unit
50m 2
Neighbourhood Common Space min. 820m 2 087
Neighbourhood - Composition
Micro-agriculture Cafeteria Workshop Commercial space (market)
088
Neighbourhood - Assembly
089
Neighbourhood - Flexibility W hen designing our common spaces, we wanted to have variations in layout, as well as f lexibility in conf iguration. We came up with multiple options of neighborhood common spaces to accommodate for shifting
090
functions and adaptable design that is customisable by users. Having more than one conf iguration of assembly also adds diversity to shared common spaces in NeceCity.
Neighbourhood Common Space 1
Neighbourhood Common Space 2
Neighbourhood Common Space 3
091
092
Aggregation 1
Aggregation 2
Aggregation Common Space
Neighbourhood Common Space 1
Neighbourhood Common Space 2
093
094
Neighbourhood Aggregation Cluster Living Unit Component
Aggregation T he level of aggregations is made up of living units and common spaces for 35 to 70 people. Common spaces include a gym, working
096
spaces, and laundrette. T his scale encompasses 7 clusters paired with 1 common space.
Aggregation - Common Spaces
Laundrette Classroom Gym Activity room
Dining space
Working space Common spaces to be added later
Lounge Contemplation room
Gym 20m 2 Working space 15m 2 Contemplation Room
10m 2
Laundrette 10m 2 Lounge/Activity Room
20m 2
Classroom 25m 2 Dining Space 25m 2
Aggregation Common Space min. 125m 2
097
Aggregation - Composition In this level, we wanted to divide spaces on the aggregation level. T he f irst diagram shows the voids and solid spaces. T he second and third diagrams show different methodologies of dividing these spaces. T he f irst method we tried uses K-means to cluster groups of points inside polygons and con-
nected by lines. T he second method is from Dr. Sumitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Decoding spaces. T his method splits polygons into a number of equal areas, while ensuring minimum length of line-based cuts. T he spaces are thus properly divided into several areas.
Laundrette Lounge Office Contemplation space
098
Aggregation - Assembly We also studied different typologies of assembly systems, since the aggregation in itself is an assembly of clusters and other
common spaces. We did not only consider single-level compositions, but we also accounted for multi-storey aggregations.
099
Aggregation - Commmon Space Plan Fluidity Like most spaces in NeceCity, aggregation common spaces are designed to easily adapt to any change of plan or conf iguration following various programs or functions. By
100
adopting a f luid plan approach with f lexible partitioning, the larger space will be divisible by versatile separations yielding multiple layout options appropriate for any activity.
Aggregation - Flexibility T he aggregations, which are combinations of clusters and other common spaces, are designed following a model spanning on mul-
tiples stories, all while keeping f lexibility of various possible arrangements.
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Aggregation common space
101
102
Neighbourhood Aggregation Cluster Living Unit Component
Cluster Level T he level of clusters is made up of living units and common spaces for 5 to 10 people. Shared spaces include a kitchen, living
104
room, bathroom, and terrace. T his scale encompasses 2 to 5 living units paired with 1 common space.
Cluster Common Spaces
Waste
Kitchen
Working pod
Bike station
Living room
Bathroom
Terrace
Power pack
Kitchenette Living unit
Living room Bathroom
105
Cluster Type A - Composition T hese diagrams show the minimum size of overlapped spaces, which we considered as a shape for our clusters. We got these interesting conf igurations of spaces from over-
Bench Planter box Solar panels Water tank
106
laying grids at various angles. Additionally, we considered sharp angles of spaces that could have technical functions, such as pipe shafts.
Cluster Type B - Composition Based on our grid overlays, hierarchy, area requirements for different functions, we were able to automatically generate a combination of several model blocks. T he highest volume represents the common space,
followed by the living unit, and the lowest volume represents the balcony. T his diagram thus shows four different orientations of the three model conf igurations we were able to generate.
Bench Planter box Solar panels Water tank
107
Cluster - Configuration Flexibility In addition to f lexibility in layout, we also considered different combinations of orientation and sizes of openings for living units in a cluster. W here appropriate for view and
108
desirable sunlight penetration, we included large openings; as opposed to smaller to no openings on sides where direct sunlight might be unwanted.
Cluster - Terrace Flexibility In a similar fashion, we created customisable terraces. T he function is f lexible, ranging from shaded canopy, to closed semi-tunnel with openings on the sides, to a built-in, fully open or partly covered planting pot. T he con-
f igurations depend on the orientation of the cluster, the amount of sunlight it receives, the type of plants in the pot, the privacy desired, and the needed function of the space required by residents.
109
110
Neighbourhood Aggregation Cluster Living Unit Component
111
Living Unit
112
Living Unit - Typologies Living units, as ordered on the NeceCity app, come in 4 typologies with varying sizes. T hey are suitable for either single or couple occupancy. Similarly, the size and orientation
of openings can also be dictated on the app as part of the variables in the automated living unit.
Typologies for singles
Typologies for couples
113
Living Unit - Arrangement in cluster
Arrangement for 4 singles
Arrangement for 1 family or 1 couple and 2 singles 114
Living Unit - Configuration Flexibility
Conf iguration 1
Conf iguration 2
Conf iguration 3
Conf iguration 4
Conf iguration 5
Conf iguration 6 115
Living Unit - Installation process After ordering the automated living unit with the desired parameters on the NeceCity app, the living unit makes its way to the allocated cluster using the special dedicated circulation and ramps for automated entities. After
116
reaching the desired location, the originally enclosed cluster automatically opens and allows the living unit to park itself in the assigned space, before closing again.
Living Unit - Mechanical System T he automated living unit drives itself supported by a frame surmounted by 6 small wheels. T he whole mechanism is controlled by a small motor that responds to computational commands initiated by a tiny comput-
erized device including a sensor. T he latter provides a sense of direction and orientation to the living unit, as well as helps maintain a safe distance between moving living units and people.
Frame
Frame
Electric wire
Electric wire
Battery
Battery
Computing devices
Computing devices
Motor
Motor
117
118
Neighbourhood Aggregation Cluster Living Unit Component
Component
120
Component - Elements Making our way to the lowest tier of hierarchy, we reach the component level in NeceCity. T his section represents an assemblage of the smallest basic elements that can be found within a living unit. T hese elements
include a f lexible and foldable â&#x20AC;&#x153;closet,â&#x20AC;? desk, chair, bed, and bedside table; as well as other transportable furniture (size and weightwise) that would have been much bulkier in a normal context.
Bedroom Furniture
Kitchen Furniture
Foldable coat hanger
Coat hanger varying with space size
Fully folded coat hanger
Kitchenette
Foldable desk
Folding desk
Fully folded (easy to transport)
Dining table (easy to separate)
Chair
Bed (Cardboard)
Bedside table (Arc element)
Fridge
Living room Furniture Sofa
Bathroom Furniture Sofa table
Toilet (energy saving)
Basin
121
Software Concept Moving in
Socialising
Select a room
Select a social activity
V iewing reservation
See details
Set a date
Set a date
Order a living unit
Get a conf irmation
Delivery
122
Room
Map
Zone E
Shared Room
Availability
Join Community
123
124
6. Experiments
126
127
Design Process
Network Typologies
Site Analysis
Steiner Tree Network
Open Spaces
Connecting to urban fabric
Core Placement
K-means Clustering
Core within Urban Fabric
Hierarchical Network
Integration Analysis
Extracting Grid
Distribute Cores
Mesh Network
128
Choice Analysis
Overlay with Urban Fabric
Def ining Parts
Iterations for Aggregation
Circulation
Aggregation possibilities
Optimisation Analysis
Performance Analysis
BCR/FAR Analysis
Spatial Analysis
Cluster
Rules for Iterations
Radiation Analysis
V isibility Analysis
Variations
Correlation
Ideal Aggregation
129
Dwelling Layer
130
131
Basic Components for Dwelling Layer
132
Living Units
Circulation
133
Aggregation Experiment - No Rules (1)
134
135
Aggregation Experiment - No Rules (2)
136
137
Aggregation Experiment - High-rise
138
139
Aggregation Correlation Matrix - Setting Up Rules
None F
None E
None D
C
B
A
A
140
B
C
D
E
None
None
F
141
Aggregation Assemblage
142
143
Aggregation Experiment - Only A
144
145
Aggregation Experiment - Only B
146
147
Aggregation Experiment - Only C
148
149
Aggregation Experiment - Circulation A, B, and C
150
151
Aggregation Experiment - Every Component
152
153
Angle Experiments - 15°
154
155
Angle Experiments - 30°
156
157
Angle Experiments - 45°
158
159
Angle Experiments - 60°
160
161
Angle Experiments - 75°
162
163
Angle Experiments - 90°
164
165
Relationship between proportion and BCR
Proportion of Circulation : Clusters = 9 : 3
BCR: 17.02% FAR: 17.02 % Total floor area: 3472.03 m2 Number of clusters: 26
BCR: 17.57% FAR: 17.57 % Total floor area: 3472.03 m2 Number of clusters: 26
BCR: 1
FAR: 19.34 Total floor Number o
Proportion of Circulation : Clusters = 7 : 3
BCR: 23.35% * BCR: Building Coverage Ratio
FAR: 23.35 % Total floor area: 3584.03 m2 Number of clusters: 28
166
BCR: 23.24% FAR: 23.24 % Total floor area: 3584.03 m2 Number of clusters: 28
BCR: 2
We studied different relationships using varying parameters. T hese parameters include the proportion of circulation to clusters, as well as the Building Coverage Ratio.
19.34%
BCR: 18.70%
4% r area: 3472.03 m2 of clusters: 26
We then combined our f indings to obtain the most suitable density of clusters to open space and circulation in our aggregations.
BCR: 17.06% FAR: 17.06 % Total floor area: 3472.03 m2 Number of clusters: 26
FAR: 18.7 % Total floor area: 3472.03 m2 Number of clusters: 26
21.16%
BCR: 20.06% FAR: 21.16 % Total floor area: 3584.03 m2 Number of clusters: 28
BCR: 23.91% FAR: 20.06 % Total floor area: 3584.03 m2 Number of clusters: 28
FAR: 23.91 % Total floor area: 3584.03 m2 Number of clusters: 28
167
Relationship between proportion and BCR
Proportion of Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
BCR: 27.55% FAR: 27.55 % Total floor area: 3920.03 m2 Number of clusters: 35
BCR: 28.28%
BCR: 2
FAR: 28.28 % Total floor area: 3920.03 m2 Number of clusters: 35
Proportion of Circulation : Clusters = 3 : 3
BCR: 30.39% FAR: 30.39 % Total floor area: 4200.05 m2 Number of clusters: 45
* BCR: Building Coverage Ratio
168
BCR: 30.05%
FAR: 30.05 % Total floor area: 4200.05 m2 Number of clusters: 45
BCR: 3
27.02%
34.12%
BCR: 25.57% FAR: 27.02 % Total floor area: 3920.03 m2 Number of clusters: 35
FAR: 34.12 % Total floor area: 4200.05 m2 Number of clusters: 45
BCR: 25.08% FAR: 25.08 % Total floor area: 3920.03 m2 Number of clusters: 35
FAR: 25.57 % Total floor area: 3920.04 m2 Number of clusters: 35
BCR: 34.40%
FAR: 34.4 % Total floor area: 4200.05 m2 Number of clusters: 45
BCR: 35.43%
FAR: 35.43 % Total floor area: 4200.05 m2 Number of clusters: 45
169
Relationship between Radiation and BCR/FAR In addition, we considered environmental factors and their impact on our aggregations, including the amount of solar radiation re-
1 2 3 4
ceived. Using the Ladybug plug-in, we analysed the different levels of solar radiation received yearly on structures with different
1. 2. 3. 4.
89.31 % 31.24 % 12.31 kW h/m² 17 : 18
1. 2. 3. 4.
163.24 % 56.71 % 11.79 kW h/m² 21 : 11
1. 2. 3. 4.
79.99 % 30.06 % 12.77 kW h/m² 9 : 21
1. 2. 3. 4.
85.60 % 32.20 % 13.95 kW h/m² 13 : 19
1. 2. 3. 4.
64.49 % 28.09 % 13.14 kW h/m² 9 : 20
1. 2. 3. 4.
101.07 % 38.79 % 12.31 kW h/m² 25 : 7
1. 2. 3. 4.
98.04 % 41.92 % 13.64 kW h/m² 21 : 13
1. 2. 3. 4.
85.53 % 31.74 % 12.42 kW h/m² 21 : 22
1. 2. 3. 4.
119.97 % 43.21 % 11.82 kW h/m² 9 : 14
1. 2. 3. 4.
67.78 % 28.30 % 14.19 kW h/m² 1:1
1. 2. 3. 4.
84.17 % 33.32 % 12.09 kW h/m² 9:8
1. 2. 3. 4.
123.13 % 44.14 % 13.42 kW h/m² 13 : 24
- FAR (Floor-Area Ratio) - BCR (Building Coverage Ratio) - Total Radiation - Circulation : Clusters
170
conf igurations and orientations. Paired with Building Coverage Ratio and Floor Area Ratio, the overlaying of these parameters has
allowed us to eventually come up with allround optimised solutions for our aggregations.
1. 2. 3. 4.
66.74 % 30.52 % 123.56 kW h/m² 17 : 18
1. 2. 3. 4.
74.70 % 31.74 % 12.41 kW h/m² 21 : 11
1. 2. 3. 4.
96.33 % 36.53 % 11.60 kW h/m² 9 : 21
1. 2. 3. 4.
114.82 % 47.60 % 12.24 kW h/m² 13 : 19
1. 2. 3. 4.
81.79 % 32.27 % 12.92 kW h/m² 9 : 20
1. 2. 3. 4.
108.25 % 39.24 % 12.30 kW h/m² 25 : 7
1. 2. 3. 4.
76.14% 30.37 % 13.08 kW h/m² 57 : 43
1. 2. 3. 4.
124.57 % 47.15 % 12.32 kW h/m² 21 : 22
1. 2. 3. 4.
71.72 % 26.64 % 12.68 kW h/m² 9 : 14
1. 2. 3. 4.
57.41 % 23.30 % 14.18 kW h/m² 1:1
1. 2. 3. 4.
103.08 % 41.05 % 12.81 kW h/m² 9:8
1. 2. 3. 4.
115.97 % 44.01 % 12.07 kW h/m² 13 : 24
171
Relationship between Radiation and BCR/FAR
1 2 3 4
1. 2. 3. 4.
75.28 % 29.82 % 13.21 kW h/m² 17 : 18
1. 2. 3. 4.
114.83 % 42.77 % 11.51 kW h/m² 21 : 11
1. 2. 3. 4.
54.54 % 22.22 % 13.98 kW h/m² 9 : 21
1. 2. 3. 4.
81.90% 28.62 % 12.14 kW h/m² 13 : 19
1. 2. 3. 4.
109.43 % 41.75 % 12.25 kW h/m² 9 : 20
1. 2. 3. 4.
81.90 % 29.30 % 12.82 kW h/m² 25 : 7
1. 2. 3. 4.
135.04% 42.86 % 11.82 kW h/m² 21 : 13
1. 2. 3. 4.
90.79% 31.30 % 13.47 kW h/m² 21 : 22
1. 2. 3. 4.
82.69 % 31.05 % 12.08 kW h/m² 9 : 14
1. 2. 3. 4.
105.78 % 42.01 % 12.44 kW h/m² 1:1
1. 2. 3. 4.
81.78 % 32.81 % 13.22 kW h/m² 9:8
1. 2. 3. 4.
69.04 % 26.11 % 13.80 kW h/m² 13 : 24
- FAR (Floor-Area Ratio) - BCR (Building Coverage Ratio) - Total Radiation - Circulation : Clusters
172
In order to f ind a balanced ratio between circulation and cluster, we analysed different iterations of building coverage and f loor area ratio. T he aim is to get an optimised and dense yet still porous assembly composition. We then ran a radiation analysis to obtain
the optimal sunlight exposure for solar panels and green spaces. After getting our combined layers of optimisation, we f iltered suitable iterations performance-wise, according to our predef ined rules.
No. of Cluters No. of Circulation BCR FAR
∝ BCR
∝ Total Radiation
Conclusion Proportion of Circulation: Clusters = 5 : 3 FAR: 40% ↑ BCR: 25~30% Total Radiation: 13 kW h/m2↑
173
Filtering Suitable Aggregations Deriving from our many experiments, we can conclude that the ratio of circulation to clusters of 5:3 was what we found most suitable for our conf igurations. For the next step,
174
and taking into account all our f indings, we started producing aggregations following the rules that we set for ourselves.
FAR: 42.51 % BCR: 24.43 % Total Radiation: 13.61 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
FAR: 50.25 % BCR: 30.89 % Total Radiation: 12.75 kW h Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
FAR: 50.25 % BCR: 30.89 % Total Radiation: 12.75 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
FAR: 54.73 % BCR: 29.61 % Total Radiation: 12.28 kW h Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
h/m² 3
FAR: 52.00 % BCR: 26.40 % Total Radiation: 12.34 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
h/m² 3
FAR: 32.62 % BCR: 21.42 % Total Radiation: 14.53 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
175
Filtering Suitable Aggregations
176
FAR: 34.62 % BCR: 19.75 % Total Radiation: 12.92 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
FAR: 70.70 % BCR: 36.38 % Total Radiation: 12.26 kW h Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
FAR: 29.93 % BCR: 18.36 % Total Radiation: 14.51 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
FAR: 36.76 % BCR: 22.24 % Total Radiation: 14.08 kW h Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
h/m² 3
FAR: 62.43 % BCR: 38.00 % Total Radiation: 14.04 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
h/m² 3
FAR: 32.26% BCR: 22.50 % Total Radiation: 14.12 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
177
Ideal Aggregations
FAR: 42.69 % BCR: 24.95 % Total Radiation: 13.28 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
FAR: 56.70 % BCR: 31.98 % Total Radiation: 13.02 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
178
FAR: 44.29 % BCR: 27.11 % Total Radiation: 13.76 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
FAR: 56.70 % BCR: 31.98 % Total Radiation: 13.02 kW h/m² Circulation : Clusters = 5 : 3
179
Distribution of Cores and Common Spaces
K-Means Clustering to calculate the average points of each cluster
Clusters Per One Core: 6 Number of Cores: 7 180
Clusters Per One Core: 12 Number of Cores: 3
Clusters Per One Core: 5 Number of Cores: 8
Clusters Per One Core: 10 Number of Cores: 4
Clusters Per One Core: 8 Number of Cores: 5
Clusters Per One Core : 4 Number of Cores: 10
Clusters Per One Core : 3 Number of Cores: 12 181
Final Outcome
Dwellings
182
Circulation
Cor
res
Structure Analysis
Aggregation Common Spaces
Structures
183
Public Layer
184
185
Basic Components for Public Layer
Components for the public layer are wider than components for the dwelling layer.
186
Iterations of aggregation layout for the public layer.
187
Aggregation Experiments
T he aggregation rules for the public layer yield a denser and more extensive composition than the one for the dwelling layer.
188
189
Aggregation Experiments with angle
Similar to the dwelling layer, compositions in the public layer also follow our grid system, and therefore need to adapt to angular situations created by diagonal orientations of grid overlay.
190
191
Connection Simulation for Living Units
192
193
Rectangle Packing Simulation To organise our public layer, we designed the ground f loor following a strategy of rectangle packing simulation. We came up with a series of f lat rectangles and boxes to populate the areas of our public spaces; with
rectangles hosting open outdoor spaces and boxes hosting indoor functions. Each rectangle/box is unique and represents a different program for the public to enjoy.
Types of Component for Rectangle Packing
194
Outdoor-centric distribution
Mixed distribution
Indoor-centric distribution
195
Variations for Each Space Many iterations can be generated for each rectangle and box,. T he smallest rectangle acts as circulation. T he rectangle slightly
196
larger also acts as circulation, only with a sense of directionality. T he largest rectangle represents the functions of plaza, pool, and
green spaces. T he two small boxes contain the arcade, shaded space, and small indoor spaces. F inally, the largest box represents in-
door spaces such as neighbourhood common spaces, market, off ices, etc.
197
Applying Variations into the Rectangle Packing
198
199
Growing into the Sea
200
201
Iterations for Each Space For each architectural manifestation of the public layers, we came up with various scenarios to populate it with different public functions. For instance, a square can be an open space, shaded or not, planted, or serv-
ing for sport activities. Open spaces on the ground f loor and rooftops can equally have a range of public options to choose from, depending on the context and desired cultural and leisure environment.
Pergola
Pool
Plaza
Sports Court
Pavilion
Landscape
Iterations for One Basic Block
202
Generated variation
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Generated variation
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Generated variation
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Generated variation
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Generated variation
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Generated variation
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
203
Result of Applying Iterations
Colorful streets o My Nomadic L I Kadikรถy in Istanbul Bradley Secker Istanbul, 2019
204
Suleymaniye Mosque Istanbul Turkey W ikimedia commons Istanbul, 2011
Balat Neighborhood in Istanbul Rife.Style Istanbul, 2018
of Balat Lifestyle stanbul
205
Bridging Layer
206
207
Steiner Tree
Shape of Bridge
Shape of Infrastructure
4 Connections
Shape of Bridge
Shape of Infrastructure
10 Connections
208
Shape of Bridge
Shape of Infrastructure
7 Connections
Shape of Bridge
Shape of Infrastructure
13 Connections
Bridge to connect inside of the site
Bridges to connect with Istanbul
209
Shape of Bridges
210
211
Bridges and Public Spaces
212
213
214
215
216
217
Dwellings Shops
Bridging
Commercial Spaces
218
Dwellings Dwellings
Shop
Bridging
Fishing spot, promenade, and boat terminal
Commercial Spaces Coastal Park Plaza & Park
219
Programmes
220
Dwellings Bridging Commercial Open spaces
221
Height
222
Low
High
223
Privacy
224
Public Private (Only for tenants)
225
Porosity
226
V isibility from Istanbul
227
Growth Over time
After 5 Years: 3 Neighbourhoods (3,072 ~ 5,760 people)
After 10 Years: 6 Neighbourhoods (6,144 ~ 11,520 people)
228
After 15 Years: 9 Neighbourhoods (9,216 ~ 17,280 people)
After 20 Years: 12 Neighbourhoods (12,288 ~ 23,040 people)
229
Site plan
230
231
Optimised location through AR visualisation
232
Every piece of data is automatically calculated and visualised, allowing people to spot the most suitable location of new clusters through augmented reality (AR).
233
Detailed model - Birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eye view
234
235
Detailed model - Birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eye view
236
237
Commercial Ground Floor (Public)
238
Bridges from the Sea to Istanbul
239
Cores
240
Circulation
241
Common Spaces
242
Living Units
243
Exploded Axonometric Clusters
Aggregation Common
Living Units
Circulation
Structure
Cores
Bridges
Public Layer
244
n Spaces
245
Aggregation Analysis We extracted one aggregation in order to represent the structure according to the ration of open, private and green spaces, vertical and horizontal circulation and building
246
height. T hese factors are important for tenants to choose their living units and for the purpose of orientation.
One Aggregation
Open Space
Vertical Circulation (Ramps)
Horizontal Circulation
W
Building Height 3m
27m
Green Space
Core Distance 98 m
E
Shadows W inter T ime
W
E
Shadows Summer T ime 247
Isovist Vantage Points We distributed different functions of open spaces according to the level of privacy they require. A pop-up store on the ground f loor will need more visibility than a working space or a contemplation room. According to the visibility analysis provided by the Grasshopper plug-in Isovist, tenants
248
can check on the NeceCityApp their suitable degree of privacy in terms of visibility and their preferred location to live. T his assessment will also allow them to browse around the site and have an insight on the level of visibility in different locations of open spaces.
4.
7.
1.
5.
2.
8.
9.
6.
3.
Right
9. 8. 6.
4.
1. 5.
2.
3. Top
7.
Living Unit
Top Level
Aggregation Common Space
Middle Level
Neighbourhood Common Space
Bottom Level
Circulation 249
Visibility Evaluation - Isovist 2D
250
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Visibility Evaluation - Isovist 3D In order to choose the location of the living units, we choose different vantage points for the evaluation of visibility. Tenants can therefore, according to personal preference, decide in which area they want to live.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
High Visibility
Low Visibility
251
252
7 . S t r u c t u r e
Structural Elements Being one of NeceCityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s core values, we not only implemented f lexibility in visual layouts and conf igurations, but we also took it into consideration for structure. Hence, NeceCity
Extension on the roof
256
General Column System
is considered to be a f lexible mega-structure that can easily respond to different kinds of surrounding and structural environments. Its ever-changing qualities allow it to adapt
Prefabricated Wooden Assembly (Circulation)
Prefabricated Wo Assembly (Cluste
ooden ers)
well on land through cores and pilotis-like columns, in water anchored by underwater footings, f loating on top of water supported by buoyant material, suspended by bridges
Concrete cores
in Istanbul, and extending on local residential rooftops.
Anchored Structural System
Floating Structural System
257
1. Grounded Structural System - Expansion of Circul
Clusters
Supporting structure
258
lation into the City Commercial spaces
259
2. Anchored Structural System
260
Floating decks Structural landing
Underwater footings (anchored)
Extended cores
261
3. Floating Structural System
262
Floating decks for: - promenades - fishing stations - ferry terminal EPS for buoyancy
Flexible connection + ladder for change in sea level Structural landing 263
Low Tide Scenario
Supporting structure
EPS
Structural landing
Footing (underwater)
Circulation
Circulation and structural landing are leveled
264
High Tide Scenario
Supporting structure
EPS Structural landing
Ladder
Footing (underwater) Circulation
Structural landing rises with the level of water, revealing a ladder to access the elevated level
265
Wood In response to a rapidly increasing urbanisation and densif ication of urban areas, wood hybrid informal structures can be a conven-
ient, eff icient and environmental-friendly alternative solution for the ongoing global shortage of dwellings.
Characteristics of Wood
Principles of
Use potential of CO2 reduction while maximising wooden parts in structure
Easy + Clean prefabrication
Leight deadweight compared to its resistance
Through hy can be comp areas of app weight bear
Skeleton con construction space and w separated fo
Structural re Heights (30
<30m 50-75m >75m cen
Positive Image of visibility (wooden buildings)
266
“Modul17: Hochhaustypologie in Holzhybridbauweise”, vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich, 2019
Low deadwe of deep foun
Construction
Structural Flexibility
brid parts, weakness of wood pensated, which can lead to new plication for large structures and ring construction reinforcement
Faรงade needs to be adaptable - fragmented fassade structure and separation of fassade and bearing structure
nstruction and weight bearing n with hybridsystem - enclosed weight-bearing construction or more flexibility
Diverse Living scenarios within a life cycle of a building are feasable
einforcement rules: 0x30m layout)
Decentralised technical system is adaptable to change of use
Reinforcement = Central circulation Additional building components required Concrete/Steel ntral circulation
eight of wood is minimising costs ndation (triangle of forces)
Decentralised modules can better react to social changes and heterogenous tenant composition
267
Manufacturing process
Components We tried to make our project as modular, prefabricated, and standardised as possible to make the combinations of different elements easy to achieve. In that same logic, the tenants will be able to customise their own faรงade in a smooth and f lexible process. T hey will have the choice between a few types of timber window frame modules. Additionally, they will be able to choose between two types of doors for the terrace and courtyard: swing and folding doors.
Materials T he faรงade of the majority of the living units, aggregations, and bridges is primarily composed of wood. Wood, being used as a local and vernacular material, is widely available in Turkey. T he main assets it offers in our project are its light weight, ecological sustainability, and f lexibility in assembly. Other materials we are using are carbon f ibre for structure, glass for openings, concrete for footings and cores, and glass f ibre for water tanks.
268
269
Supply Chain In this section, we explain the supply chain for our main choice of material – wood. Raw materials are transported by truck to the component manufacturer, which then cuts the wood into usable “components.” After that, the component are transported to the port by trucks. T he boat loads 10 trucks worth of components, which are then deliv-
* Raw materials from forests 270
ered to the assembled structure manufacturer. After that, the assembled structures are delivered by the same-sized trucks to the supply house, where they are sorted and ordered. Finally, the assembled structures are transported by small trucks to the construction site, ready for hoisting.
Material Life Cycle We also considered the material life cycle for NeceCity. We included more environmentally-friendly and energy-eff icient equipment such as water-saving toilet, more sustainable heating and cooling system, and energy-saving lighting. We also included a rain
collection and purif ication system, in addition to a water tank which stores purif ied water, ready to be consumed by tenants for their daily usage. Hot water re-circulation, solar panels, and gray water recycling systems are also provided in NeceCity.
271
Assembly of bridges
Aggregation common space Railing
Bridge wooden planks
Pipes
Structural vertical planks Landing
272
Assembly on site
Mobile crane
Installation on site Pre-assembly area
Sorting area
Assembled cluster Space for containers
Truck
Container
Transportation of materials to site
Barge
Hoisting of assembled clusters
273
Supply chain â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Process of Cluster Construction After being processed at the raw material manufacturer, the components are transported by trucks as one whole cluster structure. Each truck contains 42 cluster structures.
274
After that, the columns are also transported by a truck containing 200 cluster columns. T hen, according to our NeceCity app control
system, the movable living unit is assembled and automatically delivered to the cluster structure. Finally, additional building â&#x20AC;&#x153;acces-
soriesâ&#x20AC;? such as planting pots and benches can be added at this point. T hese elements can be recycled when not in use.
275
Supply Chain
R: Raw materials from forests 276
277
278
8 . N e c e C i t y
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
302
9 . A p p e n d i x
Water use & Consumption (Per day for 1 cluster) Hand-wash dishes 4%
Shower 25% Other cold taps 41%
Garden 1% Volume of water (in L)
Toilet 22% Bathroom hot tap 7%
Water consumption by use (for 1 cluster) [Ref.: Energy Saving Trust, 2013]
800
600
575 484
400
378 258
200 139 139
1
129
126
2
121
3
115
4
5
Number of people
Average water consumption per head & per household [Ref.: Energy Saving Trust, 2013] 304
Water use & Consumption (Per day for 1 cluster)
Uses Hand wash dishes Shower Toilet Bathroom hot tap Garden Other cold taps
Percentage 4% 25% 22% 7% 1% 41%
Volume (in L) 5.54 34.65 30.49 9.7 1.39 56.83
Total (for living unit B) Total (for living unit C) Total (for living unit D)
138.6 L 258 L 575L
Total (for cluster A) Total (for cluster E)
575 L 1150 L
Size of water tank for cluster: A (storage for 2 days) E (storage for 2 days)
1.15 mÂł 2.3 mÂł
Energy Saving Trust, 2013
305
Energy Consumption & Solar Panel Area (Per day for 1 cluster)
Appliance
Type
Consumption
Unit
Times a day
Time per usage (h)
Sec per hour
Light bulb
Traditional
60
W
1
8
3600
J per day
CFL
14
W
1
8
403200
LED
8.5
W
1
8
244800
Cell phone
-
57600
J
1
0
Laptop
-
60
W
2
3
Power bank
-
248400
J
0.5
0
Cooling
-
318
W
1
3
3434400
Heating
-
1500
W
1
1
5400000
1728000
57600 time is considered 1296000 124200 time is considered
change those 12688200 J
Total
or
3.52 kWh
Data World Bank, 2019
Term Stefan-boltzmann constant Sun surface temperature Sun radius Earth distance from sun Earth radius Albedo Latitude Cloudiness
Symbol sigma T R_sun d R_earth a alpha C
Value 5.67E-08 5778 695508000 1.50E+11 6371000 0.1 41 0.15
W/m2/K4 K m m m degree -
Symbol F F_away F_disk F_earth F_net F_region F_cloud F_avg
Value 3.84E+26 1,366.0 1.74E+17 341.5 307.3 232.0 197.2 138.0
Unit W W/m2 W W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2
Energy needs (per person) Number of people Number of sunlit hours solar efficiency Losses
E N T eff E_loss
1.27E+07 1 10 0.37 0.1
J h -
E_avg E_prod E_withloss E_N A
4,968,528.0 13,428,454.0 14,920,504.5 12,700,000.0 2.6
J/m2 J/m2 J/m2 J m2
converted from power to energy considers efficiency here considers losses here total energy for house needed area (maximum)
A (final)
1.3
m2
minimum needed area of photovoltaic
N.B.: area of PV panels is not proportional to no. of persons
Variables Solar Electricity Handbook, 2019
306
Notes
considers albedo
panels (per person)
Living Space (In m 2 )
Rooms/number of users Bedroom Bedroom (with kitchen) Kitchen (private) Kitchen (common) Kitchen (with diner) Lounge/living room Bathroom Waste
1 7 9.3 4 5 8 8.5 2 1.62
2 11.5 15 4 5 8 8.5 2 1.62
3
4
5
5 8 8.5 2 1.62
6 8 11 2 2.13
7 8 11 2 2.13
Hammersmith & Fulham Council, 2019
307
308
10.References
References Alexander Christopher. “A Pattern Language”, Arch Mill. Last Modif ied December 2017. http: // www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/mellin/articles/patternla.pdf “Balat Neighborhood in Istanbul”, Rige.Style. https: //rife.style/istanbul-beauty/ Boxwell, Michael. “Solar Electricity Handbook: A simple, practical guide to solar energy - designing and installing solar photovoltaic systems.”, Greenstream Publishing. 2019. Bradley Secker. “Kadiköy in Istanb”, 2019. https: //theculturetrip.com/europe/turkey/articles/an-in siders-guide-to-lgbtq-istanbul/ Branzi, Andrea. “No Stop City”, Frac Centre Val de Loire. Last Modif ied February 2018. http: //
www.frac-centre.fr/_en/art-and-architecture-collection/archizoom-associati/no-stop-
city-317.html?authID=11&ensembleID=42 Brunwasser, Mathhew. “A 21st-Century Migrant’s Essentials: Food, Shelter, Smartphone “, New York T imes. Last Modif ied August 2015. https: //www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/
world/europe/a-21st-century-migrants-checklist-water-shelter-smartphone.html “Colorful streets of Balat”, My Nomadic Lifestyle. https: //mynomadiclifestyle.com/unheard factsaboutistanbul/ Delaunay, Boris. “Sur la sphère vide”, Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS. 1934.
Classe des Sciences Mathématiques et Naturelles.
Deyan, Sudjic and Fabio Casiroli. “T he City too big to fail”, Urban Age LSE Cities. Last Modif ied
November 2009. https: //urbanage.lsecities.net /essays/the-city-too-big-to-fail
Gehr, Marco. “LCA benef its of RCF.”, ELG Carbon Fibre Ltd. Conference: Composite Recycling &
LCA. Stuttgard: 9 March 2017. http: //www.elgcf.com/assets/documents/ELGCF-Presenta
tion-Composite-Recycling-LCA-March2017.pdf Kadkoy, Kadkoy. “In Turkey, Syrian refugees no longer welcomed as economy teeters “, IPA
News. Last modif ied June 2019. https: //ipa.news/2019/06/07/28000-syrian-refu
gees-leave-turkeys-largest-camp/ Kant, M. and D. Penumadu. “Sea Water Effects on Ultimate Tensile and Fracture Strength of Car
bon F ibers with Nanotensile.”, 18th International Conference on Composite Materials.
Testing Knoxville: 2011.
Mehaffy, Michael W. “Generative methods in urban design: a progress assessment“, T & F Online.
Last Modif ied May 2008. https: //www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1754917080190
3678?scroll=top&needAccess=true& Myrabella. “Suleymaniye Mosque Istanbul Turkey”, W ikimedia commons. 2011. https: //en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCleymaniye_Mosque#/media/File:Cour_mosquee_Suleymaniye_ Istanbul.jpg Özköse, Adem. “Life goes on in Syrian refugee camps “, IHH (Humanitarian Relief Foundation,
Last modif ied August 2017. https: //www.ihh.org.tr/en/news/life-goes-on-in-syrian-refu
gee-camps 310
Sonja Geier, “Modul17: Hochhaustypologie in Holzhybridbauweise”, vdf Hochschulverlag AG
ander ETH Zürich, 2019
Singh, V ivek. “T hank you for helping us donate €30 million to light up refugee camps “, Ikea Foundation. Last modif ied January 2016. https: //ikeafoundation.org/story/thank-you-for- helping-us-donate-e30-million-to-light-up-refugee-camps/ Smith, Sean. “T he world needs to build 2 billion new homes over the next 80 years“, World Eco
nomic Forum. Last Modif ied March 2018. https: //www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/the-
world-needs-to-build-more-than-two-billion-new-homes-over-the-next-80-year UNHCR. “Figures at a Glance”, Statistical Yearbooks, Last Modif ied December 2019. https: //www. unhcr.org/uk/f igures-at-a-glance.html “Urban Age”, LSE Cities, November 2009/ “https: //lsecities.net /ua/conferences/2009-istanbul/” Varotsis, Alkaios Bournias. “3D Printing vs. CNC machining.”, 3D Hubs. https: //www.3dhubs. com/knowledge-base/3d-printing-vs-cnc-machining/ V incendon, Sibylle. “Catastrophes naturelles: en f inir avec les cabanes”, Architectes de l’Ur
gence. Last modif ied December 2019, https: //www.liberation.fr/blogs/2019/12/12/ca
tastrophes-naturelles-en-f inir-avec-les-cabanes_1768859 Zafar, Salman. “Renewable Energy in Refugee Camps“, Bio Energy Consult. Last modif ied March
2020. https: //www.bioenergyconsult.com/renewable-energy-refugee-camps/
311