"Out of Comfort Zone" Research Book

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

OUT OF

COMFORT z o n e

RESEARCH BOOKLET

An Investigation into Domestic Quality and Comfort

S I O W

P I N G

( A M B E R )

OBU Student ID: 18023422

G O H

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

DS7 Domestic Premise 2019-2020

CONTENTS 01

OUT OF COMFORT ZONE

A Temporary Home Analysis on The Poor Poet

1

Current UK Standards: Building Regulations

11

The Default Solution - Home Sharing Case study 1: 105 Valentia Road

27

Co-living?

Case study 3: The Collective Old Oak

51

A Housing by Community Case study 5: Iroko Housing Cooperative

79

Summary of Case Studies

105

An ‘Upgraded’ Home Transforming a Temporary Home?

7

A Crisis for Cities like London Affordable Home?

21

Temporary turned Permanent?

Case study 2: Terminus House

39

Tracing Back in History Case study 4: Karl Marx Hof

65

More than Housing Case study 6: Mehr Als Wohnen

93

02

OUT OF COMFORT ZONE

Further review on Permitted Development Schemes

109

The Policy: Office-to-residential Design Guidelines

112

Quality and Policy

The Project with Policy in Progress Conclusion: A Comfort Zone

111 116 129

Appendix: Preservation of Existing Building

131

Bibliography

139

01 OUT OF COMFORT ZONE A Temporary Home

Analysis on The Poor Poet

The Poor Poet Carl Spitzweg, 1839

2

A Temporary Home “The Poor Poet”, a German painting by Carl Spitzweg, depicts the poor living condition of a poet staying in a tiny, cold and uncomfortable attic room. The lifeless empty tile stove is the highlight of the painting, suggesting a very cold unheated room in the context of a snowy weather. (Kemp, 2015) The poet wraps himself in sheets and burns his own manuscripts for warmth. At one corner, a broken umbrella is attached to shield from water leaking through the roof. (Leopold Museum, no date) This highly limited space is forced to accommodate various domestic functions of resting, working, cooking and eating.

3

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

A Temporary Home The basic requirement of adequate insulation should be met in any living space. The sectional detail of the substandard attic room implies a lack in comfort in comparison with the floor below, where wall and floor insulations are much better provided.

The attic room should only be a temporary home.

Floor plan as per original painting: The Poor Poet

5

An ‘Upgraded’ Home

Transforming a Temporary Home?

Alteration to The Poor Poet: An ‘upgraded’ home

8

An ‘Upgraded’ Home My alteration to the painting aims for a provocation. Added are a bright orange wall to brighten up the room, a basic skylight to bring in natural light, and a work desk. This altered image presents an ‘upgrade’ to the substandard attic room.

However, is this one tactic favoured by private developers and property owners for easy profit? Without needing planning approval, tiny rooms are given minimum ‘touch-up’s to look acceptable to prospective tenants, especially where many in London are desperate for a place to live in. Yet these rooms are still substandard, and should not be fit for permanent living.

9

Imagined full floor plan: a substandard room upgraded

10

Current UK Standards: Building Regulations

Building Regulations The Approved Documents by The UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are being referred to as guidance for the UK building standards.

WALLS

Approved Document C 2010, p.33,37 Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture

12

The necessity for a well-insulated double brick cavity wall

13

Building Regulations CIRCULATION

Approved Document M1 2015, p.7 Access to and Use of Building

14

WC

Approved Document M1 2015, p.8-9 Access to and Use of Building

15

Building Regulations

London Housing Design Guide 2010

16

17

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

18

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

The substandard attic room detail

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

The ‘standard’ attic room detail

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Substandard to ‘Standard’: Complying with Regulations This ‘up-to-standard’ ensuite attic room has a triple-glazed skylight, double brick cavity wall and an adequately insulated roof as required by the UK standards. The gross internal area (GIA) is over 8m2, the minimum area required for a single person (London Housing Design Guide 2010). This building regulations compliant version is one that would pass a planning application, but what actually defines these standards for building comfort?

19

20

Building regulations compliant room

A Crisis for Cities like London Affordable home?

A attic room (non-compliant with BR by observation) for rent Image source: Gumtree

22

New "current standard" attic room for rent Image source: Gumtree

A Crisis for Cities like London Increased population, lack of accommodation and soaring rents are some of London’s persistent issues. The constantly increasing demand of housing is far unmet by current housing provision. (Domer et al, 2014, p.12)

The lack of social housing in London results in councils having to seek help from private property owners to combat the issue. (Wall, 2019) For some, the temporary rooms then become their permanent home. Unfortunately most property owners exploit the London crisis for personal profits; tiny rooms with limited infrastructure are rented out at unreasonable prices to people in need of a place to stay. Based on the website “Gumtree”, a substandard room in London can be rented for up to about £550 per month, a ‘standard’ room up to even £900 per month.

23

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

ROOM TYPE FLOOR PLAN

FLOOR AREA WALL INSULATION DOOR WIDTH & TYPE WC/BATHROOM STORAGE TOTAL GLAZING AREA GLAZING INSULATION RENTAL COST (£, P/M)

Table of Comparison: Substandard // “Standard”

BUILDING REGULATIONS STANDARD

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

SUBSTANDARD

7.46M2

8.74M2 (>8.0M2)

SINGLE BRICK WALL

BRICK CAVITY WALL W/ INSULATION

650MM (NON-FIREDOOR)

750MM (FIREDOOR)

DOES NOT COMPLY WITH BR

COMPLY WITH BR

MINIMAL

ADEQUATE

0.96M2 (15.8%)

1.64M2 (18.8%) PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

SINGLE GLAZED WINDOW

TRIPLE GLAZED WINDOW

350 - 550 (APPROX.)

600 - 900 (APPROX.)

The Default Solution - Home sharing Case study 1: 105 Valentia Road

Case study 2: 105 Valentia Road

Victorian corner terrace house converted into 6-bedroom student flat

28

When housing is lacking and rents are spiralling, home-sharing seems to be the default “solution” to accommodate more people in homes. It is also believed that sharing living spaces can combat the issue of loneliness. Some people do prefer living in a group for enjoyment more than for financial reasons. (Domer et al, 2014, p.164-165)

At 105 Valentia Road, Oxford, a Victorian corner terrace house was converted into a 6-bedroom student flat with each room being rented out at about £500 per month. The living, dining and kitchen areas are being merged into one approximately 19.30m2 common space near the entrance, and the rest of the house, including the attic, is being renovated to accommodate 6 rooms, typically 9m2 each.

Victorian house with rear extension & attic conversion

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Original unrenovated Victorian terrace house

29

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Home-sharing

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

30 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

N

N

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK ST

N AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

extension line

ground floor

first floor

31

105 Valentia Road Ground floor plan: 2 bedrooms & common area Living+kitchen+dining GIA : 19.30m2

32

105 Valentia Road First floor plan: 3 bedrooms One bedroom GIA : 8.95m2

33

36

Home-sharing PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Setting aside the financial aspect, is home-sharing really preferred by people?

37

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Temporary turned Permanent?

Case study 2: Terminus House, London

Case study 1: Terminus House

“Human warehousing” Office block turned into numerous tiny flats without needing planning permission

40

Temporary turned Permanent?

Several office blocks in Harlow, London, were converted into over 1000 multi-occupied single rooms, which critics described as “shoe-box” or “rabbit hutch” homes. One of those is Terminus House. (Wall, 2019) According to the UK Planning Portal, up to 150m2 office blocks can be converted to dwellings without planning permission. Only Prior Approval is required; that includes merely environmental matters relating to parking, highways, land contamination and flooding. Upon this approval there is no policy to govern building conversion.

41

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

42 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

N T VERSION

N

Temporary turned Permanent?

Due to a serious lack of social housing, people on the waiting list are offered private flats, hence they have to use their housing benefit claims to pay unreasonable rents from private developers, who claim to be helping the council tackle the UK housing crisis. (Wall, 2019) Since becoming a housing complex, crime rate has increased significantly around Terminus House and in Harlow. (Crawley, 2019)

43

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

44

Terminus house Single flat GIA : 23.50m2

Temporary turned Permanent?

Requirements in the building regulations are not observed, particularly concerning living space per capita. A whole family is cramped into one tiny room of all domestic functions.

Very naturally, the minimum in building regulations becomes the ‘maximum’ so to create as many rooms as possible for maximum rental profit.

45

Terminus house Typical floor plan

46

Temporary turned Permanent?

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION Substandard and overcrowded, PRODUCED these one-room flats should only be for temporary living - but are they?

Terminus house A block of shoebox-homes: Human 'warehousing'

47

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Co-living?

Case study 3: The Collective Old Oak

Case study 3: The Collective Old Oak A co-living model in West London

52

Co-living?

Quite similar to the home-sharing model, research by RIBA and Studio Weave London indicates that co-living can help with the lonely and the ageing, some of the biggest social problems in the UK. Sharing domestic amenities could help forge a more enjoyable and affordable city life. The most common co-living models in the UK are elderly care homes and student halls, followed by the recent rise of millennial-targeted “co-living” blocks.

(Frearson, 2018)

53

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

54 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

N

N

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK ST

N AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Co-living?

The Collective Old Oak is one such example most popular among young working adults in London, especially when buying a home in the city is nearly impossible. Previously a student accommodation, the Collective offers studios and two-dio’s, the latter making up most of the development.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

55

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

The Collective Old Oak A twodio: two single rooms with a kitchenette

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

56

Co-living?

At 9.8m2 each, two single ensuite rooms, and a 6.3m2 kitchenette make a two-dio. Its typical floor contains 72 units with an about 34m2 ‘big’ kitchen to share among them. Long narrow corridors link the units. With 550 units in total, all who lives at The Collective share facilities like the laundry room, a mini library, and common living and working spaces.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

57

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

58

The Collective Old Oak 72 units sharing one 34m2 ‘big’ kitchen on a typical floor 550 units sharing one 104.5m2 laundry room

Co-living?

Londoners commonly spend 40 to 50 percent of their net salary on housing. Most of The Collective’s current tenants range between ages 22 and 35, with a rough average salary of £30,000 a year. (SCMP, 2017) The rent for a room at The Collective costs £1,200 per month on average, which is about £92 per square metre. It is an all-inclusive bill so tenants do not need to bother about cleaning and managing extra house bills. There is criticism, however, that this way of co-living is not conducive to personal growth in responsibility. (Barnejee, 2019)

Compared to traditional property leases, blocks like the Collective can yield higher returns per square metre. In such a housing model, sharing common space means a sacrifice to space in the resident’s own units. This leaves room for more units, to be rented by more tenants. (Worthington, 2019)

Are developers using shared spaces for living and working to justify the small footprint of the units and the relatively high rents?

59

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

60

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Co-living?

While it is true that sharing facilities can help in combating loneliness, there is a question that arises: why must the footprint of private domestic space be sacrificed to this extent?

Have rental profits become the main theme of this housing model?

Is “co-living” actually the latest way for property owners to gain as much profit as possible out of their properties?

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

61

For how long can people stay out of their comfort zone?

Tracing Back in History Case study 4: Karl Marx Hof

Case study 4: Karl Marx Hof

The Iconic Red Vienna Architecture

66

Tracing Back in History Like most European capitals after the WWI, Vienna faced an enormous housing crisis, with high rents, mass unemployment and a depleted municipal budget. Middle class housing shortage was acute, a result primarily due to prolonged neglect of the industrial workers’ highly unpleasant living conditions. (Blau, 1999, p.5) Unlike most European capitals, the new social democratic city government didn’t respond with suburbanisation, but with a rebuilding of the inner city. It was the era of Red Vienna; the city started a huge building programme Gemeindebauten – building 64,000 flats in about 10 years, rehousing around 200,000 people. This was funded by heavy taxation of the wealthy, and new housing were built at a non-recoverable cost to the municipality.

The aim of the reform was to fundamentally improve workers’ living conditions and help democratize society. (Hatherley, 2015)

67

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

N

N

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Tracing Back in History Compared to the Taylorized houses of the German Siedlungen, the Gemeindebauten apartments were small and equipped minimally. The emphasis was on public, communal facilities instead. As housing, these were relatively affordable and well served by public transportation. Intricately woven into the existing city fabric, the Gemeindebauten appeared regressive both technologically and typologically, paling in artistic venture. (Blau, 1999, p.7)

To realise the Red Vienna building plans, the Social Democratic municipality implemented revolutionary methods of financing involving a new tax structure, land acquisition policy, standardization of building parts, and massive reorganization of the municipal administration to coordinate and oversee citywide building operations, as well as to integrate new social welfare, educational and cultural facilities in the new buildings. (Blau, 1999, p.22)

Karl Marx Hof A cluster with circulation core

70

Tracing Back in History Designed by Karl Ehn and completed in 1930, Karl Marx Hof is the most iconic architecture of Red Vienna. As a size of a small town measuring 156,027m2 and spanning 1.1km long, Karl Marx Hof has 1400 apartments with various facilities to house 5,000 people.

Its characteristically grand archways lead not to more sub-apartments and gloomy courtyards, as is the norm of 19th century housing, but to open, park-like spaces with plants, playgrounds and social buildings. The central square covers an area of 10,480m2. The development consists of two central laundries and communal bathing facilities, a dental clinic, a maternity clinic, a health insurance office, library, youth hostels, a post office, a pharmacy and 25 commercial premises including a restaurant, offices and showrooms. It is like a garden city. (Blau, 1999, p.324)

With just its scale, the Karl Marx Hof altered the concept of perimeter block, courtyard, and facade. The previously existing Viennese houses were typically five to six storeys high with poor light and ventilation, since they take up 85% of the site on average. Six to ten tenants were packed into a roughly 30m2 apartment, most of which did not have toilets and running water. (Bodkin, 2012) PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

71

Karl Marx Hof Typical floor plan of a cluster

72

Tracing Back in History In contrast, Red Vienna architecture, including Karl Marx Hof, were mixed use, large scale buildings with open community gardens. Its perimeter blocks take up only 18.5% of the enormous site, hence daylight and ventilation are adequate for all units. The complex is broken up into communities at different scales by the grouping of close-knit clusters around the three large courtyards. Each cluster consists of approximately 20 units, accessed by the central circulation core. Every unit has one or two bedroom, kitchen and living areas, a toilet and storage space. (Bodkin, 2012) Though a huge development, the Karl Marx Hof is not an impenetrable fortress that disengages from its urban context. The large arches bring porosity and render public access to the courtyards. There is a subtle interpenetration of public, communal, and private spaces that allows for fluid passage between city and Hof, putting emphasis on the points of intersection. Due to its enormous size, the Karl Marx Hof could in fact no longer perceived as a perimeter block but as a figure-ground inversion of the traditional built-unbuilt territory.

(Blau, 1999, p.327)

73

74

Karl Marx Hof Single flat floor plan Typical double bedroom GIA : 14.65m2

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Tracing Back in History In 1934, Vienna became under the rule of the conservative christian socialists. With the social democrats out of the picture, who was to take care of the communal society?

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Is the architecture still successful without the architects?

75

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Tracing Back in History As a city threatened with financial and housing issues, Vienna set itself to provide the best possible homes for the working class, putting to shame wealthy municipalities which have talked but not built. (Pink, 1928) Though the Red Vienna buildings were created by the social democrats, the communities grow and change on their own with the emergence of new programmes like bakeries, taxi stands, kindergartens, vegetable gardens and a market that occasionally pops up in the courtyard. In 1990, there was a renovation due to complaints on the size of units. While recently, an underground parking garage was built under the central courtyard. (Bodkin, 2012)

Now, the Karl Marx Hof is still a viable community. Through time the spaces are being taken care of and upgraded by the community to incorporate new programmes and systems useful to residents and even the public, making it a successful and highly commended residence even today.

A Housing by Community

Case study 5: Iroko Housing (Coin Street Co-operative)

Case study 5: Iroko Housing (Coin Street Co-operative) A co-op model in central London

80

A Housing by Community

Designed by Haworth Tompkins, Iroko Housing is a mixed tenure housing development in South Bank, London, developed by the Coin Street Community Builders (CSCB), the non-profit community housing developer of London’s South Bank.

81

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Stairs

82 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

N

N

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK ST

N AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

A Housing by Community Completed in 2001, Iroko Housing provides 59 dwellings at a 1.8 acre site at South Bank, Central London, close to the River Thames and Waterloo Station. The site is a challenging location with large office blocks to the north, blocking the river, the busy Stamford Street to the south. It is also surrounded by other housing projects by CSCB themselves.

83

A Housing by Community Iroko Housing consists of 34 four to six bedrooms family houses and 25 two to three bedroom maisonettes. Communal space of the development is maximised to about 30% of the total site at 2,170m² by adopting a horseshoe-shaped arrangement of the dwellings. Each dwelling also has private open space like garden, terrace and balcony. There are 21 residential parking spaces at ground level, and 265 public parking spaces at the basement. All houses have individual street level entrances, and two shops can be found at the corners.

The Coin Street neighbourhood centre forms the fourth side to the development. (CPRE, 2008)

Iroko Housing Typical ground floor plan: common space GIA : 32.68m2

86

Iroko Housing Typical first floor plan: bedrooms Typical single bedroom GIA : 12.25m2

87

A Housing by Community Sustainability wise, energy is harnessed with the use of solar panels, and resilient construction materials were selected in consideration for low future maintenance.

Iroko Housing Community-led housing with landscaped courtyard

90

A Housing by Community The housing is run as a co-operative; the leasehold is owned jointly by all co-op members, and individual tenants do not have the “right to buy”. Therefore housing remains available and, above all, the rents remain affordable for those in need, ranging from £80 to £185 a week. The homes are let to individuals or families who can show a good reason of housing need. Successful applicants are then committed to the active running of the co-op. The tenants have full responsibility for its management, having completed an initial training programme. An elected management committee of 15 people is responsible for the daily running of the co-op.

A scheme as such would not be possible if relied wholly upon government funding. What has allowed CSCB to prosper is its good management organisation and income generated through the co-op’s commercial activities, such as the rent from the Oxo Tower Wharf owned and managed by CSCB, made possible by securing the land at the right price many years ago. (Lowe, 2014)

This scheme demonstrates the possibility of a high density housing in central city, given a proper management framework coupled with intelligent design, and with adequate funding.

Such is a design of humane housing, not profit led but community led.

91

More than Housing

Case study 6: Mehr Als Wohnen

Case study 6: Mehr Als Wohnen

A “More than Housing” Co-op model in Hunziker Areal, Zurich

94

More than Housing In Zurich, large-scale housing redevelopments are booming in its former industrial and commercial sites. Cooperative housing construction rises in response to a lack in affordable housing. The local authorities lease land to qualified cooperatives, which in turn build and manage non-profit cooperative housing. (Schindler, 2014)

In Switzerland, the fundamental by-law for cooperatives is the “Kostenmiete,” or “cost rent.” This means that the rent is determined by only the revenue required to sustain a building’s financing, operation and capital needs. Thus buildings have less operation costs in the long-run since it is just maintenance and building improvement costs once mortgages are paid. There is no option to go into market rate for reasons of recapitalization.

(Schindler, 2014)

By insisting on architectural competition for cooperative developments, the public has a say on design quality. Dialogue between the architectural teams, future residents, neighbours, local authorities, founding cooperatives and the wider public encouraged experimentation and inspired new forms of living and working. (Moring, 2017) Participation is at the core. All work together with the aim to achieve economical and ecological sustainability while integrating new building typologies. Up until the construction began in 2012, feedback and visions of all parties were considered. Some open spaces were deliberately left unfinished until people moved in, to be altered as the community agrees. (World Habitat, 2016)

95

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

96 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

N

N

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK ST

N AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

More than Housing The housing association Mehr Als Wohnen (More than Housing) sets an excellent example with its “Project 1” settlement on a 40,170m2 Hunziker Areal site. The future-oriented, low-cost development was planned according to the goals of the 2000-watt society.

(Dürheimer, 2009) This cooperative housing complex is located in the dynamically growing Leutschenbach district in the outskirts of Zurich. Its masterplan features a pilot project of eleven buildings launched jointly by 50 housing cooperatives testing new forms of cohabitation in consideration for the future needs and ways of living of community. From design to tenancy allocation, the project upholds social diversity throughout. Household of all types are provided to catered for different backgrounds and income levels, including older people, single person households and traditional nuclear families. The development is built with the changing make up of households in mind. (World Habitat, 2016) Completed in 2015, all housing units and 90% of retail spaces are rented out. By 2016, 1,200 residents and 150 employees live and work in the buildings within the project. (Moring, 2017) Instead of the usual large-scale forms of rows and blocks, the urban planning concept proposes a cluster of smaller detached buildings, their close arrangement forming a system of routes, squares and open spaces with a distinct urban character. The tension-filled sequence of the outdoor spaces as well as the public-oriented use of ground floor areas livens up the quarter. (Andreas et al, 2019, p.270) Unlike the traditional housing estate, this complex is a city itself within the city.

97

Mehr Als Wohnen Haus A clustered flats

98

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

More than Housing Each “Haus” is designed so neighbours meet and interact to foster communal daily living.

To study in particular, Haus A is yet another “city” in itself within the complex. Like satellites, one-bedroom and two-bedroom flats with bathrooms and kitchenettes are clustered around shared living spaces. The strongly structured communal areas form paths and squares and enclose the individual or double residential flats. The common area includes shared cooking and dining areas, additional bathrooms and adjoining rooms. (Andreas et al, 2019, p.270)

Mehr Als Wohnen is akin to a mini-village. Alongside 450 apartments, within the complex there is a “village square” with landscaped seating areas. Other facilities include restaurants, shops, playgrounds and barbeque pit, a bookshop, workshops, artist’s studios, day care centres, guesthouses and a vegetable garden. (Bondolfi, 2019) PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

A

99

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Mehr Als Wohnen Haus A ground floor plan: OT workshop and cluster flats Typical two-bedroom flat GIA : 38m2 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

100

Residents are encouraged for active participation in organising community life. Ten non-commercial common spaces are available for them at no cost. Besides, an annual budget of approximately CHF80,000 (£64,000) from the solidarity fund is at the tenants’ disposal for community initiatives, such as farming and communal gardens, establishing a grocery shop, café, swap shops, dancing and yoga classes, or neighbourhood associations.

This fund is contributed by all residents. (World Habitat, 2016)

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

More than Housing

101

More than Housing The development was financed with equity provided by the founding members, loans from the City of Zurich, national funds for cooperative housing and commercial bank loans amounting to CHF195 million (£155 million). There are no commercial shareholders and almost all the income is obtained from rent. This income has to cover repayments on the development loan, running costs and funding for further renovations and infrastructure investments. Apartments are rented out generally lower than one third of household income. The average rent for a four room family apartment is CHF 2000 (£1,590) a month - about 70 to 80% of market levels. 20% of households in the development have an income below the Swiss poverty level, the rents of which are subsidised. (World Habitat, 2016) Living up to its name, More than Housing provides people access to quality affordable homes and empowering them to form communities and manage a good life together.

Summary of Case Studies

Summary of Case Studies The living condition depicted in The Poor Poet questions the idea of domestic comfort. Tiny, substandard homes on rent is not uncommon today especially in densely populated cities like London, where affordable and social housing is lacking. People in need of home have to pay high rents for private flats, yet the living conditions are often poor and far from being on par with the rent. Private property owners take this opportunity to rent out substandard flats for high profits. Without requiring planning permission, Terminus House was transformed into numerous single-flat homes from an office block. The flats are over-occupied and should just be temporary homes, but the lack of housing means they easily become permanent.

The default solution for soaring rents and a lack of housing seems to be home-sharing. Houses are renovated to include more rooms, often at the expense of reducing living spaces. Although home-sharing can tackle loneliness and is a cheaper option, people’s preference for the home-sharing model should be questioned. Is sacrificing living space a real solution to the issue of housing? And can people enjoy living in shared homes long-term?

The “co-living” housing model, such as the Collective Old Oak in London, is a great example of minimal living.

While sharing amenities do reduce loneliness, the amount of personal space should not be sacrificed to an extent where the minimum becomes maximum. Are not private developers profiting from renting out as many tiny flats as possible with each development, with the provision of shared spaces being the justification?

In a substandard or tiny, yet expensive space that is meant for temporary living - for how long can people stay there, out of their comfort zone?

Even with financial and housing issues after WWI, Vienna provided quality homes for the working class.

The Social Democrats introduced methods using a new tax system, land policy, building standardization and administration to build social homes. New social and educational facilities are integrated in Red Vienna buildings like the Karl Marx Hof. Beyond their rule, the complex continues to grow on its own, with the emergence of new programmes and renovations prompted by the residents themselves. It is still a decent housing today.

In central London, Iroko Housing by Coin Street Cooperative demonstrates the possibility of a high density housing in central city at present day, given there is a proper management framework, with good design and adequate funding. It is not profit led. The architecture is successful not only because of sustainable design, but also due to the on-going building and financial management led together by the residents.

Looking at Switzerland cooperatives, the principle of ‘helping people to help themselves’ is key. There is design that fosters communal participation. The culture of knowledge exchange between cooperatives is facilitated by a long-held tradition of self-help work and supportive housing policy. Mehr Als Wohnen is a large-scale cooperative housing in Zurich, where residents actively participate in community management and even the architectural design process.

Towards quality, affordable homes that empower its community to live comfortably together long-term this is a good practice that the housing sector should live up to.

106

A COMPARISON OF HOUSINGS

Table below summarizes the living conditions and facilities of different types of housing as studied in “Out of Comfort Zone”.

The housings represented are:1. Terminus House 2. 105 Valentia Road 3. The Collective Old Oak 4. Karl-Marx Hof 5. Iroko Housing 6. Mehr Als Wohnen (More than Housing)

: PD in London - conversion of office to residential : Shared 6-bed student house in Oxford : “Co-living” apartment in London : Red Vienna social housing : Co-operative Housing in Central London : Co-operative Housing in Zurich

Among all case studies, Terminus House and the Collective Old Oak present the least desirable living conditions. The conditions that fall below the expected design and planning quality are highlighted in red.

CASE STUDY

TERMINUS HOUSE

COMMUNAL AREA TO PRIVATE LIVING RATIO (PER FLOOR/HOUSE)

0/667.7 = 0 (PF)

105 VALENTIA ROAD

COLLECTIVE OLD OAK

KARL-MARX HOF

19.3/63.9 = 0.30 104.5/968.4 = 0.11 62.4/33.6 = 1.86 (PH) (PH) (PF)

IROKO HOUSING 31.7/72 = 0.44 (PH)

MEHR ALS WOHNEN, HAUS A 355/439.5 = 0.81 (PF)

BUILDING TO SITE PERCENTAGE

-

31.8%

-

18.5%

29.8%

PRIVATE BALCONY ALLOWANCE

-

-

-

1.8M WIDE

1.2M WIDE

1.2M WIDE

-

-

-

-

PRESENT

PRESENT 1b1p - 2b2p

COMMUNAL BALCONY HOUSEHOLD TYPES

1b2p - 2b2p (overused to 5p)

6x 1b1p

1b1p only

1b2p - 2b4p

2b2p - 4b6p

-

LONGEST UNINTERRUPTED BUILDING DEPTH

57.5M

10.9M

65.9M

13.43M

11.75M

19.67M (WITH ATRIUM)

LONGEST CORRIDOR

56.9M (1.15M WIDE)

2.6M (1.1M WIDE)

65.3M (1.05M WIDE)

5.85M (1.5M WIDE)

37M (OPEN; 3.5M WIDE)

8.8M (MIN 1.8M WIDE)

AVERAGE NO. OF DWELLINGS PER CORE

13

36

4-6

8.5

-

6

Table of comparison for “Out of Comfort Zone” case studies

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

CASE STUDIES EVALUATION

107

02 OUT OF COMFORT ZONE Office-to-residential Conversions: Policy Assured

Further review on Permitted Development Schemes A REVIEW

In England (apart from a few areas of agreed exemption), it has been possible since May 2013 to convert a building from being an office into residential use without needing planning permission. This deregulation was a policy decision taken by central government, primarily to boost the supply of housing but also to help regeneration through reuse of vacant office space. The policy was reviewed by Ministers in autumn 2015, heralded as successfully delivering thousands more homes, and made permanent. (RICS, 2018)

The quality of these schemes varied enormously. There were some high-quality developments. However, PD has also allowed extremely poor-quality housing to be developed. The comparison showed that PD residential quality was significantly worse than schemes which required planning permission, even though it clearly was still possible to deliver viable office-to-residential schemes through the more stringent full planning permission process. Evidence of this reduction in quality included: a. b. c. d. e.

‘studio’ flats just 15 or 16m2 (and an overall rate of just 30% meeting national space standards) no access to private or communal amenity space buildings with barely any changes done to convert from office to residential use residential developments in the middle of industrial estates 77% of units in the case study buildings were studio or one bedroom flats, only catering to a very narrow segment of the residential market. Two residents told us in some detail of the quality of life issues they faced in poor quality conversions.

Overall, office-to-residential PD has been a fiscal giveaway from the state to private real estate interests, whilst leaving a legacy of a higher quantum of poor quality housing than is seen with schemes governed through full planning permission.

110

Quality and Policy The project intention is to counter the poor quality permitted development works, particularly office to residential conversions. Individual units are squeezed into minimum area - since the smaller the rooms are, more units can be provided per site and so the more profitable it is for the developers or owners. Little design consideration is given towards the comfort of end-users and the homes are arguably unfit for longterm living. This claim is evidenced by the emergence of tiny rooms such as studio flats as small as 13m2, arranged side by side and occupying every possible floor space.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

This commonly accompanies with a long narrow corridor which is poorly lit and ventilated. There is inadequate or even no communal amenities since the number of units delivered is the priority. The floor plans of Terminus House and the Collective Old Oak show a great resemblance to this trend.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Typical floor plans of The Collective Old Oak and Terminus House, both located in London, feature long corridors and tiny living units.

In other cases, even the basic room window can be absent as there was no rule to make the window compulsory. It was thought to be a common sense that every room has a window, but unfortunately this too can be omitted when profit comes as priority.

Hence policy is essential to govern developments.

111

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

The Policy: Office-to-residential Design Guidelines This new policy sets out the required parameters or guidelines by which new conversions must observe. It goes beyond mere environmental considerations as required for the prior approval of permitted developments. This takes into account room sizes, the provision of private and communal open spaces, the mixture of household types and various other aspects that contribute to the overall living atmosphere. These proposed parameters are among those omitted in the permitted development schemes.

In this policy book, the parameters considered for quality control are: dwelling area according to groups, private and communal domestic facilities, private balcony, room views, number of units accessed per core, building depth, corridor dimensions, and greenery. In addition the ground floor should be designed for active frontage.

The typical understanding of a ‘unit’ is often one that caters for family groups, commonly known as one-bed, two-bed, three-bed units and so on. Unit types like 2b3p, 3b4p is very much designed for couples living with children. This project, however, challenges this model by proposing living units that respond not only to families but also to people who would live with non-family members. Instead of using the typical model, the groupings are renamed to one-person, two-person, group of three and group of four, considering that people may not necessarily live in family groups.

For comfort, the size of dwellings should by no means adhere only to the proposed minimum floor area. The minimum is there to ensure the absence of unergonomic and claustrophobic living space. The floor area coverage should be considered alongside site conditions; say in this project, each dwelling floor area should integrate with the existing column grid.

Towards quality living, the proposal includes a balance of private and communal activities, hence the main facilities of living, kitchen and dining spaces are offered both in private dwelling and in communal space.

This should allow for users to manage preferred activity privacy. However communal living is not limited to the mentioned activities, but also opportunities to gather over other preferred activities such as games, house parties, and co-working. The unprogrammed nature of the main communal space gives flexibility to users to define their optimum quality living.

This project also seeks a compromising overlay of both office and residential elements. To that end, the intentional preservation and exposure of existing column grid is made evident. The new residential layout seeks an integration into the office grid. Meanwhile the existing cores are maintained except for disruptions required to remove the existing shared water closets. The design outcome is a housing evident of its previous building life as an office.

The application of these parameters towards a new residential model should ensure the development of quality housing that is comfortable, flexible and inclusive. Such homes should be fit for long-term living.

112

Reference should be made to the Policy Booklet for detailed information on the required parameters to observe for office conversions to office.

THE POLICY: OFFICE-TO-RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 1.0

DWELLING AREA ACCORDING TO GROUPS

3.0

BALCONY INSET

2.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

10.0

DOMESTIC FACILITIES VIEWS

BUILDING CORE

EXISTING GRID OF COLUMNS BUILDING DEPTH

LINEAR CORRIDOR DIMENSIONS GREENERY

ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR

The policy defines the project; it set up the backdrop for design and technologies decisions that aim ultimately towards the quality and comfort of domestic living.

113

Policy concerning Grouping

LONDON DESIGN HOUSING GUIDE 2010

Reference is made to the 2010 London Design Housing Guide regarding the minimum requirement of Gross Internal Area (GIA) for different dwelling types. This family-friendly model often includes a double bed for two people, commonly couple or parents, and additional single beds for the couple’s children. These one/ two/three-bed unit model is still the typical housing typology this day, but in designing for the future, it should be challenged to accomodate needs of the changing society and to be inclusive.

Table of dwelling space standards

114

PROPOSED DWELLING GROUPS

This project questions forms of grouping and takes into account how people today might live with people outside of family. It challenges the mentioned model by proposing living units that responds also to people who would live with non-family members like a partner or friend(s). The typical one-bed, two-bed (etc.) type units are typically designed for a traditional family. For instance, the 3b4p unit commonly caters for a couple with 2 children, ending up with one master bedroom and two smaller rooms.

Here, the proposed dwellings provided include homes for one person, two persons, group of three, and group of four; they can be for both family and non-family groups. As the project is not designing for a traditional family model, the dwellings are renamed as pictured below as to include various groups of residents.

In addition, every new development must provide for at least two different types of dwelling groups to meet people’s needs and preferences.

An individual room with a double bed is offered for each resident, regardless of the person’s identity. This also means each person has an averagely larger personal area, hence the dwelling minimum GIA must be increased from the stated GIA in the table above. This new GIA rule should be strictly followed.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

One-bed One Person Dwelling Minimum GIA 45m2

Two-bed Two Person Dwelling Minimum GIA 60m2 Three-bed Group of Three Minimum GIA 70m2 Four-bed Group of Four Minimum GIA 80m2

Dwelling types and minimum GIA of project PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

The new minimum GIA does not suggest that all units should adhere to that stated minimum floor area. The minimum is there to prevent the outcome of unergonomic and claustrophobic living space. The dwelling floorspace and layout should be considered also with regard to the site. In this project, the dwelling layout should be designed to integrate well with the existing office grid while not falling below the stated minimum area to ensure comfort.

115

The Project with Policy in Progress

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

116

Existing external wall

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

1800

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Demolition of external wall to create balcony inset

117

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

118

Private and communal balconies form part of the policy to increase living comfort. A 1800mm all-round balcony inset is applied following the building external perimeter, except for the non-residential ground floor. They then also act as a buffer against the immediate context and roads, especially with greenery is encouraged to be planted along the balconies.

119

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

120

Existing office floors

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Cutting of existing floors to infill with new lightweight floor and voids

121

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

122

The maximum building depth for a new conversion is 20m, beyond which a void or atrium should be introduced. This is to ensure the quality of natural lighting and ventilation in the new residence, as they are aspects which affect the mental wellbeing of residents. This counters the living atmosphere as found in case studies Terminus house and the Collective Old Oak, where there is no design intervention to introduce void and natural lighting, but instead, long corridors and tiny rooms.

The interventions involved include cutting slabs to create voids, and adding skylights to the roof as aligned with the new voids.

123

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

124

Existing roof structure

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Removal of roof structure to introduce skylight

125

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

126

New atriums to reduce building depth and enhance natural lighting and ventilation

Site 1 - Finsbury Business Centre A view of the communal with new floor and atriums

127

Conclusion: A Comfort Zone Environmental guidelines are not sufficient to ensure comfort living and this is evidenced by examples of permitted developments where rooms are tiny, communal amenity is minimal, living facilities are inadequate and the general atmosphere is limitting and uninviting to live in long-term. Without a policy to govern, such qualities emerge in housings today. This is also due to design driven by profit for the developers and land owners.

Quality residence should bring comfort to end-users. To this end, the design of office-to-residential projects should take into account a mixture of dwelling groups to suit different people groups and not just traditional family models. Besides providing sufficient room sizes, there should be good accessiblity to both private and communal domestic facilities, along with the provision of private balcony and decent views. Flexibility is an important design element, and in this project this is highly seen in unprogrammed nature of the communal space. Overall, the number of dwellings accessed per core and corridor dimensions should also be regulated for safety and livability. Building depth of typical office blocks should be reduced by introducing atriums and greenery so that the converted residences have a better lit and ventilated interior. Greenery is encouraged to promote the wellbeing of residents. Active steet frontage should connect residents and the larger community and enhance the urban street vibrancy.

Following a design guideline is essential to ensure that no new residence is created to be substandard and fitted only for short-term living. Therefore this policy sets a backdrop for the project in designing for comfort living.

129

Appendix

Conversion and preservation works on existing buildings PRECEDENTS

References are being made to a few projects that involves the refurbishment of a building, particularly those which involves cutting slabs and walls to “lighten” the building, and also those that sought to preserve the existing elements and textures to integrate with the new.

CONICAL INTERSECT // GORDON MATTA-CLARK

132

Conical intersect Cutting floor slabs and walls In 1977, this work was to be part of his series of so-called ‘cuttings’, the cut-out removal of parts of buildings, whereby Matta-Clark would blow new life and movement, if only briefly, into abandoned derelict buildings and forgotten neighborhoods.

133

Conversion and preservation works on existing buildings SALA BECKETT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, BARCELONA // FLORES & PRATS

134

The design process has been done with the utmost respect towards the former social club, studying the existing spaces and decoration and relaying on them to create the atmosphere of the new drama centre.

A large foyer connects all the levels through a series of successive openings, exposing completely the building to a promenade of interior sights, in a way that everyone entering is attracted to look up or around, see people and say hello. Thus, the foyer becomes somehow a domestic place, where relations and exchanges can happen unexpectedly, surprisingly in its many turns and corners. The real theatrical activity is not just happening at the exhibition spaces but expanded to the building as a whole.

135

Conversion and preservation works on existing buildings CIVIC CENTRE LLEIALTAT SANTSENCA 1214, BARCELONA // HARQUITECTES

136

The precarious hygiene conditions in the rest of the constructions, besides their being poorly connected, encouraged to propose a large longitudinal void, joining the three volumes and all their spaces – new and old – through a gradual progression, from the more public to the more private spaces. The void results from completely demolishing the centerline near the party wall to Olzinelles street, becoming a sort of interior street, emphasized in the second structural volume by enlarging the existing light well. Finally, behind the last structural volume, a triple space contiguous to the void of the two previous volumes wraps up the sequence. The succession of voids configures an atrium limited by ‘new’ facades opposed to the existing party walls, which show traces of the building’s history. The atrium brings light and air to all the spaces, becoming the axis of the horizontal and vertical circulations, and offering the new potential for use for unforeseen programs.

137

Bibliography

Bibliography Kemp, Wolfgang. “A Room with a Temperature: On some Interiors of the 1830s/40s and the Discovery of the Energy Laws”, Interiors and Interiority. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.

Leopold Museum, no date. Carl Spitzweg. [Online] [Accessed on 25 September 2019] https://www.leopoldmuseum.org/alte-en/exhibitions/focus-on-a-painting/carl-spitzweg-the-poor-poet Wichmann, Siegfried. Carl Spitzweg. New York: Rizzoli, 1976.

Domer, Klaus. Drexier, Hans. Schultz-Granberg, Joachim. Affordable living: Housing for Everyone. Berlin: Jovis, 2014.

Söntgen, Beate, and Ewa Lajer-Burcharth. Interiors and Interiority. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.

UK Approved Documents [Online] [Accessed on 9 October 2019] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/approved-documents

Dwelling size survey, 2010. [Online] [Accessed on 9 October 2019] https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118111538/http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/dwelling-size-survey.pdf Interim London Housing Design Guide, 2010. [Online] [Accessed on 9 October 2019] https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/interim_london_housing_design_guide.pdf

Housing space standards London, 2006. [Online] [Accessed on 10 October 2019] https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/hatc_housing_space_standards_report_for_gla_2006.pdf Housing standards review, 2013. [Online] [Accessed on 10 October 2019] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/230250/1-_Housing_Standards_Review_-_Consultation_Document.pdf

National Planning Policy Framework, 2019. [Online] [Accessed on 12 October 2019] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf

Tom Wall, 2019. The Guardian: Private profit, public squalor: Britain’s housing scandal. [Online] [Accessed on 15 October 2019] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/13/profits-from-poverty-britains-housing-scandal-providers-make-millions Matt Precey and Laurence Cawley, 2019. BBC: Inside Harlow’s office block ‘human warehouse’ housing.

[Online] [Accessed on 15 October 2019] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47720887

Amy Frearson, 2018. Dezeen: Co-housing not just for “liberals and outcasts” says Studio Weave. [Online] [Accessed on 2 November 2019] https://www.dezeen.com/2018/08/14/co-housing-not-niche-studio-weave-living-closer-co-housing-report-architecture/ Katie French, 2017. Is this the solution to London’s housing crisis? [Online] [Accessed on 4 November 2019] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5807125/Four-storey-Victorian-home-converted-14-tiny18sq-ft-apartments.html

Rohan Banerjee, 2019. The Rise of Co-living. [Online] [Accessed on 08 November 2019] https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/housing/2019/08/rise-co-living

Kate Worthington, 2019. Is Co-Living A Utopian Dream Or Student Halls For Grown-Ups? [Online] [Accessed on 08 November 2019] https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/co-living-developments

South China Morning Post, 2017. ‘Co-living’ draws millennials in London. [Online] [Accessed on 10 November 2019] https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2115882/tiny-london-co-living-flat-comes-restaurant-cinema-gym-and-library BBC Newsnight, 2018. Britain’s Housing Crisis: Peterborough - BBC Newsnight. [Online] [Accessed on 10 November 2019] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWusOdc4sC8 Mint, 2017. Co-living’ project takes on London housing crisis. [Online] [Accessed on 10 November 2019] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqJoSrLfr7w

Guardian Culture, 2016. I have 500 flatmates: London rediscovers co-housing | How We Live Now. [Online] [Accessed on 10 November 2019] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19h4v9MpVvw Tim Lowe, 2014. The secret tenant: rent a room on London’s South Bank for £80 a week. [Online] [Accessed on 15 December 2019] https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/renting/the-secret-tenant-rent-a-room-on-londons-south-bank-for-80-a-week-40086.html

CPRE London and CPRE Kent. Family Housing – The Power of Concentration. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), 2008.

Blau, Eve. The Architecture of Red Vienna, 1919-1934. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1999.

Pink, Louis H. The New Day in Housing. New York: The John Day company, 1928.

Alex Bodkin, 2012. Karl Marx-Hof & Red Vienna. [Online] [Accessed on 12 December 2019] https://vimeo.com/35278999

Owen Hatherley, 2015. Vienna’s Karl Marx Hof: architecture as politics and ideology - a history of cities in 50 buildings, day 24. [Online] [Accessed on 22 December 2019] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/27/vienna-karl-marx-hof-architecture-politics-ideology-history-cities-50-buildings How to buy an affordable home in London - BBC London [Online] [Accessed on 3 January 2020] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVGmGuRZOmE Generation Rent - Living to Let | BBC Newsbeat [Online] [Accessed on 3 January 2020] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX87pxmtvEQ

BBC London, 2017. High Rise in the capital – BBC London. [Online] [Accessed on 12 January 2020] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hUHpZyU6I

Bibliography BBC News, 2016. How will right to buy be paid for? BBC News. [Online] [Accessed on 13 January 2020] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6asqoz0UhU&pbjreload=10

Susanne Schindler, 2014. Housing Beyond the Market: Transatlantic Precedents. [Online] [Accessed on 13 January 2020] https://urbanomnibus.net/2014/12/housing-beyond-the-market-transatlantic-precedents/ Andreas, Paul. Jung, Karen. Schmal, Peter Cachola. Housing for All: Building Catalogue. Berlin: Dom Publishers, 2019.

Axel Dürheimer, 2009. Cooperative future district in Zurich. [Online] [Accessed on 14 January 2020] https://www.detail.de/artikel/baugenossenschaftliches-zukunftsquartier-in-zuerich-1550/

Sibilla Bondolfi, 2019. Cooperative living: a hip alternative for the Swiss. [Online] [Accessed on 14 January 2020] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/living-in-switzerland_cooperative-living-as-a-hip-alternative-/45143682 World Habitat, 2016. More than Housing. [Online] [Accessed on 15 January 2020] https://www.world-habitat.org/world-habitat-awards/winners-and-finalists/more-than-housing/#outline Jelly Moring, 2017. It’s all about people at ‘More than Housing’. [Online] [Accessed on 15 January 2020] http://www.housingeurope.eu/blog-1045/it-s-all-about-people-at-more-than-housing

Bernstein, Levitt. Why the government should end permitted development rights for office to residential conversions. London: Levitt Bernstein, 2019.

RICS. Clifford, Ben. Ferm, Jessica. Livingstone, Nicola. Canelas, Patricia. Assessing the impacts of extending permitted development rights to office-to-residential change of use in England. London: UCL RICS, 2018.

CLC. Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard. London: Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015.

Islington Council. Urban Design Guide: Supplementary Planning Document. London: Islington Council, 2017.

Islington Council. Site Allocations: Direction of Travel Draft. London: Islington Council, 2018.

Out of Comfort Zone OBU MArchD: DS7 2019-2020