2 minute read

TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY REIMAGINED

Next Article
TINY HOUSE PROJECT

TINY HOUSE PROJECT

Spring 2021, Visiting Critique Studio

Instructor: Liang Wang

Advertisement

Partner: Meejan Patel

Location: Ahmedabad, India

The project focuses on reinventing the traditional pol house typology of Ahmedabad, India into temporal housing for student living. With the increase of technology and online classes, we are interested in the ways in which we can provide temporal housing for the younger generation in response to such technological change. Therefore, while maintaining traditional elements essential to the pol typology, the proposed housing reimagines the pol as a more flexible and open community dwelling for students in Ahmedabad.

We envision the block as a populated and vibrant community where residents can interact amongst themselves, but also with the surrounding community and informal economies that circulate onto the site.

The project proposes two types of modules in order to fit both residential and commercial needs. One of the main differences between type 1 (residential) and type 2 (commercial) is the inner "garden" space. This concept of an inner garden originally came from the traditional pol house typology where the garden serves as an air tunnel to release hot air inside the house. This space is also regarded as an in-between space, which loosely connects public and private spaces within the house. While the inner garden is situated in each module of type 1, the garden seen in type 2 is generated by combining modules. In order to respond to the collective character of the type 2 modules, we decided to create a larger inner garden, rather than having small gardens inside of each module.

The main material of the project is wood since it is light and suitable for humid climates. While the traditional pol house uses walls as a spatial guide to separate units or programs, in our project, we used frames, which consist of wooden columns and beams, to create more spatial flexibility.

An Axonometric View of the Community

Rhinocerous/Adobe Illustroator

With the development of (digital) technologies, the importance of physical existence has been getting less and less. We further argue that programs are now not defined by architectural spaces, rather, users define temporal programs of the space they are at/in. In other words, multi-purpose is a keyword for responding to a rapid-changing society. Although the modules we designed to have only two types, by changing elements of the interior, modules can function for various purposes.

Project Process Phases

Phase 1:

Aging existing site

Phase 2: Demolition of the project site

Phase 3: Foundation construction

Phase 4: Wooden frames assembly

Phase 5: Construction of the frames

Phase 6: Wooden beams construction

Phase 7: Secondary beams construction

Phase 8: Roof construction

Phase 9: Floor construction

Phase 10: Building facade construction

Phase 11:

Building walls construction

Phase 12: Repeating process for the rest of the modules

Phase 13:

Reimagined community during daytime

Phase 13.1: Daytime activities

Phase 13.2:

Evening/night time activities

Phase 14:

Demolition due to deterioration

Phase 15:

Reconstruction of new community

Phase 16: Repeated demolitions as needed

URBAN IN-FILL MODULAR LIVING

Fall 2021, Intern at SPG Architects, NYC

Location: New York City

One of the major themes that SPG Architects is interested in is modular construction as a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable means. SPG brings this modular constructioin to NYC's affordable housing crisis context to propose alternative way to construct urban fabric. The project is a small multi-family building which is inserted in urban streetscapes.

SPG sees each floor unit as a module, and by stacking the prefabricated modules, the project provides cost-effective construction.

The ground floor is designed for shared community facilities, with one module containing public services oriented toward the street, and the second containing residents’ common area that is oriented toward the shared garden. The scheme maximizes FAR for the site but a modern curving and dynamic outdoor fire escape provides both egress and access to shared outdoor living areas at the garden and roof levels.

This article is from: