The Imperative of Spatial Agency in the Tectonics of the Affordable Home | Nasrynn Chowdhury Thesis by The Design School at Arizona State University

THE IMPERATIVE OF SPATIAL AGENCY IN THE TECTONICS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOME STUDENT: NASRYNN CHOWDHURY

DIRECTOR: MARC NEVEU

SPRING 2020

0.0 ABSTRACT 0.1 PREFACE

2 3

1.0 DEFINING AGENCY 1.2 SPATIAL AGENCY

4 6

2.0 THE ETHICAL IMPORTANCE OF AGENCY

3.0 THE CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF AGENCY 3.1 WITHIN TODAY’S ECONOMIC STRUCTURE 3.2 OUR BLINDNESS TO THE ORDINARY

10 10 11

4.0 RESTORING AGENCY 4.1 PREFABRICATION 4.2 ADAPTABILITY 4.3 CASE STUDIES Cairo Flats, Acheson Best Overend, 1935-1936 6x9/6x6 Demountable House, Jean Prouve, 1944-1945

13 13 15 17 17 22

5.0 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 5.1 THE STRUCTURE 5.2 APPLICATION TO RODEN CRATER

25 25 28

0.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

0.0 ABSTRACT This thesis explores the imperative of spatial agency in the context of affordable housing within a capitalist free-market economy and an age in which agency has been stripped from the architect and inhabitant alike. It defines the concepts of spatial agency of both the architect and inhabitant as well as the means to achieve this, namely prefabrication and adaptability as frameworks within the social sciences and architectural discourse. These definitions will then be further evaluated via their practical applications in several case studies dated between 1936 and the present. Ultimately, a flexible and low-impact solution will be implemented into the design of off-site housing units for the Roden Crater housing project as well as one possible solution to affordable housing crises in an effort to utilize the once profit-driven means of prefabrication towards a more socialist end.

0.1 PREFACE

The act of dwelling, instigated by the early hominid’s attempt to protect itself, finds

inherent roots within the domain of anthropology. But in our evolution from prey to predator, modernity has rendered our impetus to protect ourselves secondary to a constituent far less concerned with basic survival in the conception of the present-day dwelling. With over 60 million people forcibly displaced across the globe1 and no less than 150 million transient2, stripped of both a conventional home and sense of place, the conversation regarding housing within the last century has turned to issues of placemaking and agency. In The Architecture of Happiness, Alain de Botton elaborates, “We need a home in the psychological sense as much as we need one in the physical: to compensate for a vulnerability. We need a refuge to shore up our states of mind.”3 But in the face of growing absence in sufficient and economical housing, what should be the priorities of architects and urban planners? Do affordable housing crises warrant a singular architectural approach for the masses in order to maximize the efficiency and, therefore, breadth of its impact? Is it possible for mass-produced housing solutions and the expression of individual agency to co-exist? For the purpose of theoretical exploration, if you uphold the notion that architecture is purely a function of place, please suspend your belief.

U nited Nations, “Figures at a Glance,” UNHCR, 2020, http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html) J oseph Chamie, “As Cities Grow, So Do the Numbers of Homeless,” As Cities Grow, So Do the Numbers of Homeless | YaleGlobal Online, July 13, 2017, https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/cities-grow-so-do-numbers-homeless) 3 A lain De Botton, T he Architecture of Happiness (London: Penguin Books, 2014)) 2

CHAPTER 1.0: D EFINING AGENCY 1.1 AGENCY Conventionally framed by the social sciences, agency refers to our decision making capacity, which grants the expression of individuality through independent thought or action. Agency or the lack thereof can determine an individual’s social or political standing within a society, and therefore, draws a conflicting duality between itself and a broader structure, or social order. As such, the term agency inherently implies a certain degree of social involvement. Social theory suggests a continuously unfolding dialectic between individual agency and social structure, and indicates the potential for the actor and structure to manipulate one another: “to consider the relationship between structure and agency a dialectical one is to assert that while social structure shapes individuals, individuals (and groups) also shape social structure.”4 With this, it is also understood that agency can be practiced by the individual or the collective. However, in the instance of architectural discourse, agency does not imply collective agency per se, but rather, it suggests the agency of an individual within a greater agentic system of multiple and successive actors. There are two primary instances in which we might witness this discordance between agency and structure within architectural praxis. In the first, agency is presumed to belong to the architect, while certain economic and political forces prove deterministic of the supposed social structure. In this relationship, the agent might believe he or she

N icki Lisa Cole, “What Is the Sociological Definition of Human Agency?,” ThoughtCo (ThoughtCo, January 22, 2019), https://www.thoughtco.com/agency-definition-3026036)

possesses some form of autonomy in enacting change, but his or her position might in reality be demoted to mediator of pure technicality and his or her verdicts might ultimately be thwarted by authoritative structure. In actuality, the productions of a tiny minority of elite architects perpetuate the myth of the power of individual agency, and the glamour of their products masks the way that the vast majority of architectural production is in the thrall of economic and political forces. The individual agency may exist, but in such a minority that they are in an ineffectual foil to the production of dross that emits from the overriding economic structure.5 The second occasion involves the subsequent level of the hierarchical relations within architectural practice: the partnership between architect and ‘client’. In Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, Awan e t al. expounds on this partnership by stating, “in foregrounding the necessity of working with others, agency inevitably exposes the professional to issues of power, and in particular of how power might be used, and how it might be abused, by professionals acting as spatial agents.”6 Historically, the license of spatial agency has been interpreted by the architect as an allotment of power more so than an allegiance to the client, often evoking a sense of tension and contention between two parties whose agendas should, instead, be aligned by mutual goals. However, with the advent of technology and social media, users continue to desire an increasing degree of participation and authority within the design process, resulting in the

A wan, Schneider, and Till, S patial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011)) 6 Awan et al.

rise of the do-it-yourself (DIY) movement.7 8 Has the conventional role and agency of the residential architect diminished over the past decade? How will the role of the architect adapt to the rise in technology and the ever-expanding ability to ‘DIY’? The present thesis will explore the ways in which agency can be employed by the architect and inhabitant alike.

1.2 SPATIAL AGENCY Spatial agency can be defined as an individual’s ability to produce or reproduce space. Of the several classifications of space,9 I will be referring to s pace in the social sense (though according to Lefebvre, all space is social space10), which employs the following three considerations. The first is the understanding of political and economic contexts in conjunction with the relations within society as a method of spatial transformation. Through his writings, imbued with Marxist political ideology, Henri Lefebvre constructs a dichotomy of space as categorized under socialist versus capitalist modes of production; the latter he believes to have imposed unparalleled governance over the composition of space and “forces of production.”11 The agenda of a capitalist structure reduces the conception of space to its exchange value: “real estate parcels for

M arco Wolf and Shaun Mcquitty, “Understanding the Do-It-Yourself Consumer: DIY Motivations and Outcomes,” A MS Review 1, no. 3-4 (December 2011): pp. 154-170, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-011-0021-2) 8 S. Sinem Atakan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Carolyn Yoon, “Consumer Participation in the Design and Realization Stages of Production: How Self-Production Shapes Consumer Evaluations and Relationships to Products,” I nternational Journal of Research in Marketing 31, no. 4 (December 2014): pp. 395-408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.05.003) 9 H enri Lefebvre and Donald Nicholson-Smith, T he Production of Space (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1974)) 10 Lefebvre, 73 11 Lefebvre, 54.

exchange in the market, cubes and volumes demarcated and partitioned so as to be interchangeable as commodities.”12 This abstract concept, which constitutes the result and consequent “triumph of homogeneity”13 within capitalist modes of production, stands in opposition to its absolute counterpart, which instead stresses its use value. Rather than a product, the resultant space speaks more to the organic emergence of “felt needs and urges of daily life.”14 The second axiom speaks to spatial fabrication in its evolving form. This establishes a shared enterprise,15 suggesting a blatant rejection of the notion of the architect as the sole agent, and with it, the power imbalance between creator and consumer that remains implicit in the practice today. Concepts of form and fixed function often dominate the palette of creativity, and architects find themselves neglecting architecture’s most integral constituent: its people. The definition of social space should alone surrender the prospects of a singular author. Lastly, we must consider the dynamism and temporal nature of social space. Lefebvre writes, “it embraces the loci of passion, of action and of lived situations, and thus immediately implies time... it may be directional, situational or relational, because it is essentially qualitative, fluid and dynamic.”16 Thus, the production of single space may recount a process of various structures and agents over time. Moreover, the understanding of time and spatial evolution begs an anthropocentric focus. The a ct of

Carroll William Westfall, “The Production of Space. Henri Lefebvre , Donald Nicholson-Smith,” T he Journal of Modern History 66, no. 2 (December 1993): pp. 346-348, https://doi.org/10.1086/244834) 13 Lefebvre, 337 14 Westfall, 889 15 Lefebvre, 57 16 Lefebvre, 42.

dwelling, rather than the product (the dwelling itself), should be the architectural pursuit. Once one attempts to play witness to life within the dwelling as opposed to the exchange value of its structure, it becomes evident that spatial fabrication is a perpetual process, harboring the cycle of human life, along with the production and reproduction of domestic ritual. The production of space occurs at two levels, one at the level of the architect and the other at the level of the occupant (individual) who also reproduces. Under the architect’s directives, the material constituents of a space are decided and produced. The immaterial constitution of space consists of the perpetual production of space through categorization and the reproduction of space through continuous practice (domestic ritual) by the individual.

CHAPTER 2.0: THE ETHICAL IMPORTANCE OF AGENCY It is necessary to address the essential or non-essential role of spatial agency within the context of affordable housing, as certain models explaining human need, namely Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, would indicate that the sheer provision of shelter, the basest of requirements, renders superfluous the efforts to provide anything greater.17 Given the supposition that spatial agency would likely fall within the penultimate tier of Maslow’s pyramid (see FIGURE 2A), the psychological need for personal “esteem,”18 one must ask if this matter is of any worthwhile concern to those attempting to remedy in

Saul Mcleod, “Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs,” Simply Psychology (Simply Psychology, March 20, 2020), https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html) 18 Mcleod.

breadth the affordable housing shortage? From the perspective of another theoretical framework such as that of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s c apability approach, one may argue that while bare physiological need, as a prerequisite of survival, remains a foundational principle of well-being, there must also exist a moral emphasis on the capacity of an individual to eventually achieve the certain living that he or she values, which evidently surpasses mere survival.19 Thus, in the context of affordable housing, the architect should consider this approach regardless of the financial circumstance of the user group. Furthermore, in the consideration of resources in this approach to well-being, a notable difficulty arises due to the distinctive and subjective nature of humankind. This consequently necessitates a solution that accommodates individual spatial agency, and in doing so, might simultaneously address the aforementioned heterogeneity in human need. Moreover, in reference to earlier discussion concerning Lefebvre, space that has become abstracted constitutes the Marxist definition of alienation in which an individual “experience[s] himself as the acting agent in his grasp of the world [and] the world (nature, others, and he himself) remain alien to him.”20 Under this notion, which renounces spatial agency, one would argue that the gravity of alienation, in severing the individual from that which renders him human, would precede that of even the most basic of Maslow’s needs.

The previous groundwork applied to the domestic built environment would

produce a model in which the provision of affordable housing as a resource must 19

Ingrid Robeyns, “The Capability Approach,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford University, October 3, 2016), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/) 20 Erich Fromm, T. B. Bottomore, and Karl Marx, M arxs Concept of Man (United States: No Publisher, 2013))

outperform its mere function as shelter and a means of survival. As an ideal, the architecture itself would engender a sort of spatial agency that would in turn grant its inhabitants the ability to pursue an idiosyncratic form of domesticity.

Figure 2A. MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

CHAPTER 3.0: THE CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF AGENCY 3.1 WITHIN TODAY’S ECONOMIC STRUCTURE

Both the architect and inhabitant are deprived of spatial agency within a capitalist

free-market economy. Hence, this scarcity exists on two scales: the first is between the architect (agent) and the economy (structure), and the second is between the user

(agent) and the architect (structure). Though regarding these particular relations, the architect alone deals directly with the capitalist structure, the user, albeit discursively, also suffers the consequence of a stripped sense of spatial agency. This occurs primarily due to “the fact that, in a capitalist society, the real producers of commodities remain largely invisible. We only approach their products through the relations which the act of exchange establishes between the products,”21 namey, capital. As our sole relations to these products materialize monetarily, we neglect the “social character of private labour” 22

as well as the social relations between individuals themselves. Accordingly, agents

within a collective process of spatial production relate to the abstraction of one another and in doing so, partake in the process of alienation, as they interpret the forces of production as self-contained, “independent of their control and their conscious individual action”23 i.e. agency.

3.2 OUR BLINDNESS TO THE ORDINARY Excerpts from N. John Habraken’s Y ou Can’t Design the Ordinary:24 A dwelling is an environment. A dwelling cannot be designed (you can design a house, a flat, A castle, a hut; but not a dwelling). A dwelling is the result of action

Dino Felluga, “Modules on Marx: On Fetishism,” Introduction to Karl Marx, Module on Fetishism, accessed 2020, https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/marxism/modules/marxfetishism.html) 22 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Capital; Critique of Political Economy (Chicago: C.H. Kerr & Co., 1907)) 23 Marx et al. 24 “YOU CAN'T DESIGN THE ORDINARY – N. John Habraken,” T U, accessed 2020, http://t-plus-u.com/portfolio/telling-habraken/)

In ordinary life. A dwelling is an act, Not a shape. Dwellings cannot be the product of designers. But dwellings can be the result of Ordinary people making decisions about Things made by specialists And who, by so doing, Create. If the architects really wants to deal With the ordinary, They should make the act of dwelling possible. They should make it possible for people To house themselves. They should design the product That enable ordinary people To house themselves. Architects who profess love for the ordinary Should become gardeners. The gardener does not make, He cultivates. This notion of the ordinary mentioned by Habraken refers to what is always there but never seen. We, as occupants of our homes, have lost sight of the ordinary, which, in the domestic space, manifests itself in the rituals of domesticity and arguably stands in

opposition to Marxist alienation. The modern inhabitant unconsciously resides within a de-contextualized space and in doing so, unconsciously produces and reproduces this space. Perhaps the proliferation of technology has obscured the ordinary, as spatial relations start to become obsolete. Regardless of the reason, the role of the architect should be to conceptually recognize the ordinary (everyday practice of domestic ritual) in order to produce spaces that maximizes the ability of the inhabitant to express his or her spatial agency, ultimately reacquainting the inhabitant with the ordinary.

CHAPTER 4.0: RESTORING AGENCY 4.1 PREFABRICATION Prefabrication refers to the off-site assembly of a structure and/or its parts. Hence, the scale of prefabrication ranges from individual components, panels, volumes or modules, to an entire building (See FIGURE 4A). This method of construction was conceived during the early industrialization period in the late 18th century. In his book Projecting Capitalism, Marc Linder writes: It was not the absence of stone and clay and timber and metal ores in Australia and South Africa and the West Indies which created the large market for prefabricated houses, warehouses, theatres and churches in these places in the nineteenth century. It was the absence of an infrastructure and population sufficient to meet locally the immediate needs of colonialism, combined with the

existence of the metropolis and the economic viability of making and transporting prefabricated structures in the industrial age.25 Similarly, the method of prefabrication, which may be perceived by some as a shift towards a further capitalist, or profit-driven, ideal, is rejected by architect-authors such as N. John Habraken or Nabeel Hamidi who conceptualize efforts toward user-agency in relation to social and affordable housing. Hence, the notion that prefabrication as a primary method of construction would grant both the architect and in effect, the user greater spatial agency is one that may be paradoxical, given that impetus behind the use of prefabrication is somewhat rooted in the pursuit of maximizing profit whilst the affordance of agency may seem to be a more socialist ideal. Even if the importance of agency on the moral grounds established in Chapter 2.0 is rejected, there is also a pragmatic argument to be had in regard to favoring prefabrication. Firstly, sufficient housing will be a need for the foreseeable future.26 Secondly, the resistance to change27 from conventional construction methods to prefabrication can be mitigated or compensated for by the added efficiency28 of the proposed method. Through the advantages of off-site construction methods, namely lower cost, resource efficiency, and accelerated construction, the architect attains a sense of spatial agency through the additional design benefits of optimal flexibility in 25

Marc Linder, Projecting Capitalism: a History of the Internationalization of the Construction Industry (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994)) 26 “68% Of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN | UN DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs,” United Nations (United Nations), accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospect s.html) 27 “2017 FMI/BIM Forum Prefabrication Survey,” FMI, September 5, 2019, https://www.fminet.com/special-reports/2017-fmibimforum-prefabrication-survey/) 28 Tomas U. Ganiron, “Development and Efficiency of Prefabricated Building Components,” International Journal of Smart Home 10, no. 6 (2016): pp. 85-94, https://doi.org/10.14257/ijsh.2016.10.6.10)

design options and the ability to mass produce detail efficiently and precisely. This solution would allow for the restoration of agency while, for the sake of pragmatism, conform to the restrictions of a widespread capitalist free-market economy: efficiency and cost.

Figure 4A. TYPES OF PREFABRICATION

4.2 ADAPTABILITY Just as the method of prefabrication achieves for the architect a sense of spatial agency, so too does the implementation of adaptability grant the user. Habraken interprets the built environment as a multi-scale composition of systems, each of which can be shaped by distinct actors with agency. The user may manipulate the contents of the room but cannot move the room itself; the placement of interior walls demands the expertise of a contractor and/ or architect. Similarly, the traditional construction of an entire house requires the participation of building professionals and further. Ole Bouman of the Netherlands Architecture Institute expounds on Habraken’s theoretical standing, stating, “his architecture is not about the façade. It’s about the organization of space.” For

the purpose of this study, we will adopt Habraken’s original dichotomy of ‘structure’ and ‘infill.’29 Hence the user possesses spatial agency at the degree to which he or she is able to manipulate the physical components of a space, which brings forth the concept of adaptability. If adaptability of a dwelling is defined as the capability and degree of functional change within a given space, an implicit dyad then follows. The first is towards a higher degree of functional change, a greater capacity of a “fixed situation to endorse several functions.”30 This is referred to as generality, universality, or polyvalence, or what I will classify as “intra-flexibility.” Separately, adaptability can also imply, by way of physical modification, the capability of permutation through arrangement, also referred to as flexibility, elasticity, or extendibility31. However, there is further disparity in scale between intra-flexibility, which occurs within the module, and flexibility, which refers to the possibility to modify (shrink or enlarge) the entirety of a building. This distinction becomes particularly relevant when considering the structural theory of Habraken, who conceptualized adaptability in a structural system involving an architectural dichotomy of support and infill. This theoretical framework divorces tectonics from private life within it so that agency, arguably, is granted to both architect and inhabitant alike. In essence, the theory stresses empowerment of the housing occupants through the undertaking of an

N. J. Habraken and Jonathan Teicher, S upports: an Alternative to Mass Housing (U.K.: Urban International Press, 2011)) 30 Paula Femenias and Faustine Geromel, “Adaptable Housing? A Quantitative Study of Contemporary Apartment Layouts That Have Been Rearranged by End-Users,” J ournal of Housing and the Built Environment, March 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09693-9) 31 Femenias et al.

active role in the production of their domestic environment, namely, in other words, the granting of spatial agency. There is a distinction between intra-flexibility, which refers to the adaptability of the space itself and hybridization. The term hybridization refers to the ability of an object to serve multiple purposes within a given space. It is generally a rule that smaller spaces necessitate a higher degree of hybridization in as many space-taking entities so as to maximize efficiency. However, this can be reframed from the perspective that the ability to use a single product for multiple functions inherently grants its user choices. The crux of Habraken’s theoretical framework lies in the passage of agency from architect to inhabitant, with emphasis on the latter. The Dutch translation reads, “I announce the supports, but they will also come unannounced.”32 Perhaps the following analogy can be drawn: the architect provides the bound book, in which the inhabitant fills the pages. The following case studies illustrate ways in which the former concepts manifest into physical space, tectonics, and ritual.

4.3 CASE STUDIES Cairo Flats, Acheson Best Overend, 1935-1936 Located in Fitzroy, Melbourne, the Cairo Flats are a two-story housing complex designed by architect Best Overend. Completed in 1936, the Art Deco complex was one of the first significant examples of serially arranged flats, dwellings placed side-by-side and stacked above one another. The complex comprises 28 self-functioning studios,

N. John Habraken, “Supports,” Supports, accessed 2020, https://www.habraken.com/html/supports.htm)

in-house food and laundry services, a convenience store, and a since-abandoned communal dining hall. Upon returning to Australia after exploring experimental housing ideas with modernist architect Wells Coats in London, Overend invented the framework for the ‘minimal flat’, which, in theory, provided the maximum amenities within a minimal footprint without compromising comfort. In the context of early 20th century Australian residential architecture, the Cairo Flats stood as an anomaly due to its modernist interpolation and was hence registered as a landmark in the State of Victoria’s architectural heritage. Its horseshoe form affords a communal but private central garden, outlined by the exterior pathways, which double as access to each flat. The primary structure consists of blue clinker brick with the use of cantilevered concrete balconies, second-level exterior paths, and curved stairs, which was also considered a technological experiment at the time (see FIGURE 4B).

Figure 4B. CAIRO FLAT, CANTILEVERED CONCRETE STAIRWAYS AND BALCONIES

The flats have since been modified and renovated by its inhabitants. Michael Roper, resident of the Cairo Flats and local architect, highlights a series of methods used to create the illusion of a larger space within a 247-square-foot apartment. Firstly, the apartments are north-facing, meaning the interior is regularly exposed to natural sunlight and also lends itself to an uninterrupted view of the exterior garden expanse. Secondly, the 9.5-foot ceilings, which are flush with the walls, invoke a sense of continuity of vertical space. Roper stresses the notability in the high degree of hybridization within the small footprint, arguing that each object must serve at least one if not multiple functions within various spatial systems. The foremost object is the storage unit built against the east wall, which integrates the bookshelves, wardrobe, and pull-down bed. A mobile floor-to-ceiling curtain conceals the storage to create a public living space and, when pulled back, fashions a bedroom. The curtain rod curves and extends to the North window-wall so that its function can fulfill that of a typical curtain, to obscure sunlight. The kitchen door, which used to sit adjacent to the hallway passage, preventing the use of the partition, was transformed into a servery window and now also operates as a bedside table when the bed is lowered. Even more menial items, such as the footrest doubling as a stool, serve another function as well.

Figure 4C. MICHAEL ROPER’S CAIRO FLAT

Nicholas Agius, another resident and local architect, adopted a slightly varied framework when modifying the flat, one which adopts the concept of intra-flexibility with an inherently high degree of hybridization. He describes the spatial organization as a ‘suite’ of various layouts. Similar to the storage structure of Roper’s space, the kitchen unit in Agius’ flat dictates the usability of the flexible rooms. Characterized by the crossover between a toolbox and cabinetry bench, the kitchen unit hides behind a large swinging door, which holds racks for spices, sauces, hanging knives and towels, sitting

against the west wall. The second door slides to the east wall, creating both a partitioning door and bookshelf for the bedroom and simultaneously contains a pantry for the kitchen unit. Open, the kitchen unit subdivides the space, crafting a single living and dining space and a separate bedroom; closed, the kitchen unit is completely hidden, and the space transforms into a continuous studio with a single permeable partition. Agius capitalizes on the 9.5-foot high ceilings by raising the bed, creating a crawl space that stores the washing machine as well as a ladder that doubles as a shoe rack. Both adaptations of the Cairo Flats exemplify a high degree of hybridization of categorized spaces that enables the individualized expressions of spatial agency.

Figure 4D. NICHOLAS AGIUS’ CAIRO FLAT

6x9/6x6 Demountable House, Jean Prouve, 1944-1945 At the turn of the 20th century, the era of industrialization formally introduced the potential for standardized mass manufacturing to architectural discourse. Among efforts toward a more efficient method of residential construction, such as the Sears ‘Modern Homes’, mail-order kit homes with the ability to be shipped and constructed on site, reflected an abundance of theoretical designs awaiting fruition. One such prominent example is the Demountable House by French designer, Jean Prouvé, a former metal worker and furniture designer who launched his architectural and structural explorations in the 1930s. His architectural philosophy argued that buildings should leave no trace on the land, hence the conception of the ‘demountable’, temporary structure. To Prouve, there was “no difference between the structure of a building and the structure of a table.” 33

With a focus on structural systems, Prouve designed a bi-prong support that braced all

further structure. He named this the “axial portal frame construction.” This structural system became somewhat of an architectural stamp of the successive designs of Prouve. A mass demand for quick and affordable residential housing after the Second World War, which left 18% of France’s housing war-damaged, rendered Prouve’s Demountable House highly germane. The structures could be built in less than a day with a crew of five workers. After the Normandy Landings in June of 1944, the NGO Committee on Human Settlements reported that the French Ministry for Reconstruction and Urban Development instructed the construction of 800 units. Only half of this figure 33

McLean, “A New Unintended Equilibrium of Functions,” WestminsterResearch (Architectural Association, January 1, 1970), https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/8zz43/a-new-unintended-equilibrium-of-functions)

was actualized, as the government changed its original strategy of temporary housing to permanent. Prouve designed others similar to the original Demountable House, one such example being La Maison Tropicale, a modular aluminum house intended for French colonial West Africa. Only three were constructed due to the lack of a substantial market for them. Soon after, Prouve retired from the business after a falling out with one of the primary shareholders of his factory. Ironically, the 2010s saw the Maison Tropical, once conceived as an effort towards social housing, auctioned for $5 million, and some of the other original demountable structures were sold to private art collectors as galleries for their collections. Quite possibly, the flaw lies in their all-too-minimal approach, as neither electricity, plumbing, nor insulation were embedded into the original structure. Perhaps an alternate difficulty can be found inherent in the design itself, considering its highly individualized structure, which, given the industrial network at the time, made potential repair incredibly problematic as it was unable to be supported by anyone but the original manufacturer. This is “what commentators on Japan’s unique technology development term the ‘Galapagos Effect’ where a degree of isolation and autonomy create the perfect environment for the incubation of multifarious local variety and innovative vernacular.”34 In essence, a product of the Galapagos Effect is one that may work for a highly specialized market and people but does not hold up at a global scale, which proves an evident and substantial defect in this particular conception of mass affordable housing. 34

Fiona Sinclair Scott and Sophie Eastaugh, “Jean Prouvé's Pre-Fab Masterpieces: The Mass Housing That Never Was,” CNN (Cable News Network, June 13, 2016), https://www.cnn.com/style/article/jean-prouve-pre-fab-housing/index.html)

Figure 4D. JEAN PROUVE’S 6X6 DEMOUNTABLE HOUSE

Figure 4E. JEAN PROUVE’S LA MAISON TROPICALE

CHAPTER 5.0: IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 5.1 THE STRUCTURE There are a number of chief parameters that the research and theoretical framework above establishes that require consideration for its viable implementation. Firstly, the ‘structure’ and/or its elements will be prefabricated. Secondly, the ‘structure’ will adhere to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s dimension restrictions for the transportation of prefabricated elements on a flatbed truck: 14 feet by 40 feet.35 Thirdly, the ‘infill’ will have a high degree of intra-flexibility for its user. In this project, mass timber is employed for the following reasons. Cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels and glulam structural system, the two types of mass timber utilized, are, as they exist already, prefabricated. Particularly with the use of prefabricated panels, construction is approximately 25 percent faster than concrete.36 Furthermore, the wood can be locally sourced and varied per location. In addition, the method of mass timber uses renewable and sustainable resources, achieving a light carbon footprint. The single 14’x40’ module is split into three: two distinct living spaces on opposing ends and one “service hall” that connects the pair (see Figure 5A). The module is mirrored, creating a shared entrance and deck between. The two modules are considered a single unit. To accommodate the small square footage and desired intra-flexibility, two primary

“A Review of Manufactured Housing Installation Standards and Instructions: HUD USER,” A Review of Manufactured Housing Installation Standards and Instructions | HUD USER, 2003, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/destech/MHsgDRM.html) 36 “Mass Timber in North America,” R eThink, n.d https://www.awc.org/pdf/education/des/ReThinkMag-DES610A-MassTimberinNorthAmerica-161031.pdf)

apparatuses within the space are mobilized: the floor system and the kitchen unit. The typical use of floor studs are nonessential due to the structural CLT and instead act as a mechanism to store items, namely the bed, and personal belongings such as clothes and valuables, allowing what was once simply the structure to function as livable space. The tucking-away of certain programmatic elements utilized only during certain times of the day such as the bed and general storage, allows the mobility of other members, namely, the two demountable partitions (the interior sliding door and the exterior pivot door) and sliding kitchen unit. The 10’ wide central service hall stores the kitchen unit, fixed bathroom and fixed washer and dryer unit. This initial organization allows for a number of spatial configurations,which can accommodate anywhere between 1-4 occupants, and thus a high degree of intra-flexibility. The spatial configurations are a function of time and user group, relating to both the everyday of the occupant(s) as well as the lifespan of the structure in regards to multiple occupants over time. Four individuals can reside in the unit, two per module; in this model the unit would consist of four private bedrooms and two shared service halls. This would mean that the kitchen unit and other services are shared by two individuals within a single module (see FIGURE 5A). During the evenings and nights, the four might use each living space as a typical bedroom (see FIGURE 5B) and during the day, the occupants of a single module might choose to transform the two separate living space into a single functioning module by folding away the private elements (bed, storage), pulling out the kitchen unit into one of the living spaces, and transforming the service hall into a typical hallway connecting the two (see F IGURE 5C) or they might alternatively

decide to keep to the two distinct living configuration. In essence, a single occupant can use a half module, full module, or full unit. A single module is large enough to accommodate two occupants such as a couple. Likewise, an entire unit is large enough to accommodate a family of four, or even more if there are small children. Additionally, there exists a high degree of hybridization in certain furniture such as the bed, which doubles as a sofa when only one half of the plywood sheathing is lifted and rested against the wall, to function as a backrest. The table that releases from the cupboard of the kitchen unit can serve as extra counter space, a dining table if extended, or a desk, with an adjustable table leg to accommodate varying height requirements. In addition to the affordance of user spatial agency, the tactile nature of the dwelling components hopes also to reacquaint its inhabitant to a more conscious domestic ritual. In regard to off-site construction, F igure 5G depicts the 5-layer structure, which consists of timber cladding, plywood sheathing, wood fibreboard insulation, damp proof course, and exposed CLT. The roof, walls, and floors would be constructed of the aforementioned prefabricated panels, with mechanical, electrical, and plumbing elements built in; the only potential differentiation would be in the use of either 3-ply or 5-ply CLT, determined by structural need. The species of wood would most likely be contingent on the location of the manufacturing factory, though in this case, the drawings identify the use of birch and douglas fir, as these trees are native to the context of the site itself. The two modules are structurally joined by a single glulam beam and rafter system.

5.2 APPLICATION TO RODEN CRATER Roden Crater, situated in Northern Arizona, gained extensive attention after artist James Turrell designed a large-scale artwork to be constructed within the crater. Turrell commissioned the construction of temporary housing to be used primarily by construction workers and managers of the Roden Crater project, and later by students and in-field researchers. The site is 7 miles West of the crater. The proposed structure fulfills three acute criteria in regard to the housing of Roden Crater, a single instance of its prospective siting. (1) The nature of non-permanent architecture, is addressed through the deliberate omission of concrete and the consequent use of a steel screw pile foundation. (2) Its multiple itinerant user groups, too necessitates a high degree of flexibility within the living spaces. (3) The heavily restricted and difficult access to the site itself leads to the reconsideration of traditional building methods of on-site construction, and instead to the application of mass timber off-site construction.

From left to right: Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D. PROGRAMMATIC DIAGRAMS

Figure 5E. PLAN PERSPECTIVE

Figure 5F. SECTION PERSPECTIVE

Figure 5G. CONSTRUCTION AXONOMETRIC

0.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY “2017 FMI/BIM Forum Prefabrication Survey.” FMI, September 5, 2019. https://www.fminet.com/special-reports/2017-fmibimforum-prefabrication-survey/. “68% Of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN | UN DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs.” United Nations. United Nations, May 16, 2018. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanizatio n-prospects.html. “A Review of Manufactured Housing Installation Standards and Instructions: HUD USER.” A Review of Manufactured Housing Installation Standards and Instructions | HUD USER, 2003. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/destech/MHsgDRM.html. Altaş, Nur Esin, and Ahsen Özsoy. “Spatial Adaptability and Flexibility as Parameters of User Satisfaction for Quality Housing.” Building and Environment 33, no. 5 (1998): 315–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1323(97)00050-4. “Archbishop Tutu in His Own Words.” BBC News. BBC, July 22, 2010. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-10734471. Arefi, Mahyar. Deconstructing Placemaking: Needs, Opportunities, and Assets. London: Routledge, 2016. Atakan, S. Sinem, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Carolyn Yoon. “Consumer Participation in the Design and Realization Stages of Production: How Self-Production Shapes Consumer Evaluations and Relationships to Products.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 31, no. 4 (December 2014): 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.05.003. Awan, Schneider, and Till. S patial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011. Blokland, Talja. “‘You Got to Remember You Live in Public Housing’: Place‐Making in an American Housing Project.” Housing, Theory and Society 25, no. 1 (2008): 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090601151095. Botton, Alain De. The Architecture of Happiness. London: Penguin Books, 2014. Chamie, Joseph. “As Cities Grow, So Do the Numbers of Homeless.” As Cities Grow, So Do the Numbers of Homeless | YaleGlobal Online, July 13, 2017. https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/cities-grow-so-do-numbers-homeless.

Cole, Nicki Lisa. “What Is the Sociological Definition of Human Agency?” ThoughtCo. ThoughtCo, January 22, 2019. https://www.thoughtco.com/agency-definition-3026036. Darcy, Michael, and Dallas Rogers. “Inhabitance, Place-Making and the Right to the City: Public Housing Redevelopment in Sydney.” International Journal of Housing Policy 14, no. 3 (March 2014): 236–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2014.934157. Estaji, Hassan. “A Review of Flexibility and Adaptability in Housing Design,” August 2017. https://doi.org/10.14621/tna.20170204 . Felluga, Dino. “Modules on Marx: On Fetishism.” Introduction to Karl Marx, Module on Fetishism. Accessed 2020. https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/marxism/modules/marxfetishism.html. Femenias, Paula, and Faustine Geromel. “Adaptable Housing? A Quantitative Study of Contemporary Apartment Layouts That Have Been Rearranged by End-Users.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, March 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09693-9. Fromm, Erich, T. B. Bottomore, and Karl Marx. Marxs Concept of Man. United States: No Publisher, 2013. Ganiron, Tomas U. “Development and Efficiency of Prefabricated Building Components.” International Journal of Smart Home 10, no. 6 (2016): 85–94. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijsh.2016.10.6.10. Habraken, N. J., and Jonathan Teicher. Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing. U.K.: Urban International Press, 2011. Habraken, N. John. “Supports.” Supports. Accessed 2020. https://www.habraken.com/html/supports.htm. Hamdi, Nabeel. The Placemakers Guide to Building Community. London: Earthscan, 2010. Hearn, Jane. “A Short History of Prefabrication.” Prefab Museum. Accessed 2020. https://www.prefabmuseum.uk/content/history/short-history-prefabrication. Kazepov, Yuri, Fabio Colombo, and Tatiana Saruis. “The Multi-Scalar Puzzle of Social Innovation.” Local Social Innovation to Combat Poverty and Exclusion, 2019, 91–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32tpj.10. Lefebvre, Henri, and Donald Nicholson-Smith. The Production of Space. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009.

Lewis, Roger K. “Let's Go from 'Public Housing' to 'Social Housing'.” The Washington Post. WP Company, May 3, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/lets-go-from-public-housing-to-social-housing/20 13/05/02/2f96427e-b1a7-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html. Linder, Marc. Projecting Capitalism: a History of the Internationalization of the Construction Industry. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. C apital; Critique of Political Economy. Chicago: C.H. Kerr & Co., 1907. “Mass Timber in North America.” ReThink, n.d. https://www.awc.org/pdf/education/des/ReThinkMag-DES610A-MassTimberinNorthAmerica-1 61031.pdf McLean. “A New Unintended Equilibrium of Functions.” WestminsterResearch. Architectural Association, January 1, 1970. https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/8zz43/a-new-unintended-equilibrium-of-fu nctions. Mcleod, Saul. “Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.” Simply Psychology. Simply Psychology, March 20, 2020. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html. Moore, James W. “What Is the Sense of Agency and Why Does It Matter?” F rontiers in Psychology 7 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01272. Moore, Rowan. “Housing in Crisis: Council Homes Were the Answer in 1950. They Still Are.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 30, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/30/housing-crisis-council-homes-are-the-answer #comments. Moradibistouni, Milad, Brenda Vale, and Nigel Isaacs. “Evaluating Sustainability of Prefabrication Methods in Comparison with Traditional Methods.” Sustainability in Energy and Buildings 2018 Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, January 2018, 228–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04293-6_23. Peterman, William. “The Meanings of Resident Empowerment.” New Directions in Urban Public Housing, 2017, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315125220-3. Robeyns, Ingrid. “The Capability Approach.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, October 3, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/.

Ronald, Richard. “Housing and Welfare in Western Europe: Transformations and Challenges for the Social Rented Sector.” L HI Journal of Land, Housing, and Urban Affairs 4, no. 1 (2013): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5804/lhij.2013.4.1.001. Ryan, Brent D. T he Largest Art: a Measured Manifesto for a Plural Urbanism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2017. Scott, Fiona Sinclair, and Sophie Eastaugh. “Jean Prouvé's Pre-Fab Masterpieces: The Mass Housing That Never Was.” CNN. Cable News Network, June 13, 2016. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/jean-prouve-pre-fab-housing/index.html. “Space, Place and Agency.” Peacebuilding and Spatial Transformation, 2017, 13–31. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315684529-2. Stott, Rory. “The Paradoxical Popularity of Jean Prouvé's Demountable Houses.” ArchDaily, February 23, 2016. https://www.archdaily.com/782589/the-paradoxical-popularity-of-jean-prouves-demountable-ho uses. “The Debatable Rise and Fall of Social Housing.” The Fall and Rise of Social Housing, January 2020, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvwcjh16.7. United Nations. “Figures at a Glance.” UNHCR, 2020. http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html. Vestbro, Dick Urban, and Liisa Horelli. “Design for Gender Equality: The History of Co-Housing Ideas and Realities.” Built Environment 38, no. 3 (January 2012): 315–35. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.38.3.315. Westfall, Carroll William. “The Production of Space. Henri Lefebvre , Donald Nicholson-Smith.” The Journal of Modern History 66, no. 2 (December 1993): 346–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/244834. Wolf, Marco, and Shaun Mcquitty. “Understanding the Do-It-Yourself Consumer: DIY Motivations and Outcomes.” AMS Review 1, no. 3-4 (December 2011): 154–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-011-0021-2. “YOU CAN'T DESIGN THE ORDINARY – N. John Habraken.” T U. Accessed 2020. http://t-plus-u.com/portfolio/telling-habraken/.