Oikos 2.0 | AADRL by Jianfei Chu褚剑飞

NAHMAD-BHOOSHAN STUDIO PHASE 1 | TERM 2 APRIL, 2018.

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & THESIS STATEMENT 1. STUDIO BRIEF 2. THESIS STATEMENT 3. LONDON HOUSING SITUATION

CHAPTER 2: PRECEDENTS & REFERENCES

7 8 10

1. VERTICAL CITIES 2. HOME CUSTOMIZATION 3. ADAPTABLE COMMUNITIES 4. CO-LIVING IN LONDON 5. SELF BUILDING COMMUNITIES

19 22 23 26 28

3. GRID GAME 4. CREATURE GAME 5. GAME OF LIGHT 6. SHARE-MATE GAME 7. OIKOS GAME

34 38 42 46 50 54 60

2. CIRCULATION 3. UNITS

82 84 86

CHAPTER 3: SOCIAL DYNAMICS 1. GAME THEORY 2. LEGO GAME

CHAPTER 4: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 1. 3D AGGREGATION

CHAPTER 5: FORMAL SPECULATION 1. PNEUMATIC EXPERIMENT

2. SOAP-FILM EXPERIMENT

BIBLIOGRAPHY & IMAGE REFERENCES

94 96 107

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & THESIS STATEMENT

STUDIO BRIEF CHAPTER 1.1

FUTURE OF LIVING Alicia Nahmad Vasquez Shajay Bhooshan The last five centuries of Modern Science, from Newton and Darwin to the big science of the Large Hadron Collider and the Human Genome Project, has provided remarkable insights into the two fundamental questions of human inquiry – the origins of the universe and that of life. In more recent times – the last half century – scientists have sought to subject cultural production and artefacts to similar rational enquiry, using the tools of science – particularly those of physics and evolutionary biology. On the one hand, scientists have attempted to deploy physics-based models of crystalline growth, fluid flows, etc to understand the consequents of culture – the built environment and cities (Batty 2007; Benguigui 1998). On the other hand, social behaviour is posited as a form of biological adaptation of the human species and thus amenable to the application of models from evolutionary biology – an idea pioneered by Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 2016), and subsequently developed by others (Gabora 1995; Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman 1981). In either case, a rational causation is sought – simple laws and processes of interaction between fundamental units that over an extended period of iterative evolution explains the tremendous complexities of present-day cultural production and social behaviour. Philosopher Daniel Dennett, extends this evolutionary model, especially the mimetic approach espoused by Dawkins, to the specific cultural fields of technology and human intelligence. He compares, in the field of design, the slow, trial-and-error, bottom-up process of Darwinian evolution to that of a directed, top-down search process of intelligent design – specifically comparing the design-processes of a termite mound versus that of Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia. In effect, he is extending the search mechanisms of Darwinian spaces (Godfrey-Smith 2009) – a space of all possible organisms, to that Design spaces – a space of all possible (human-made) designs. Based on this, the main aim of the studio is the rational enquiry of design by intelligent humans with a specific focus on the directed search of design-space. The directed search aims for the efficacious design, production and human occupation of architecture. Lastly, the studio particularly focuses on the augmentation, by computer and computer-controlledmachines, of the intelligence of the human designer in such a search.

Batty, M., 2007. Cities and complexity: understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals, The MIT press. Benguigui, L., 1998. Aggregation models for town growth. Philosophical Magazine B, 77(5), pp.1269–1275. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. & Feldman, M.W., 1981. Cultural transmission and evolution: a quantitative approach, Princeton University Press. Dawkins, R., 2016. The selfish gene, Oxford university press. Gabora, L., 1995. Meme and variations: A computational model of cultural evolution. 1993 Lectures in complex systems, pp.471–485. Godfrey-Smith, P., 2009. Darwinian populations and natural selection, Oxford University Press.

THESIS STATEMENT

“Many people hope that the new architecture of the minimal will encourage peaceful cohabitation and make social self-regulation processes possible. The prerequisites for this are in place, because dwellings, buildings and settlements will again be designed by the hands of the people who live in them…” 1 Frei Otto Among the failures of modern architecture, arguably the most critical has been its inability to address urban complexities. The main reason for this failing has been the perception of an architecture of statis: immutable and timeless. Natural organisms have life cycles, so does the built environment. A city can be perceived as an overlay of materialized social dynamics’ frames throughout its history. Moreover, these dynamics change continuously over periods of time as our lives adapt on a daily basis. Our research is interested in adaptive models of living considering changes in social behavior and specific requirements on a time-based environment. Social-dynamics shape our communities and they evolve constantly adapting to various factors, i.e. socio-economic, cultural, technological, environmental, et. al. Our living requirements and social dynamics today surely won’t be the same in several years, or even in months or weeks depending in our specific circumstances and our immediate context. We are interested in an architecture that can accommodate changes in these dynamics and a person’s particular circumstances throughout time. Most importantly we are interested in developing an architectural rule-set or by which every person can participate in the design process without affecting the coherence of the overall configuration. In result, we can evaluate how social behaviors emerges from factors such as: public, shared, private, interior and exterior space, lighting and views. Some of these concepts are inherited from Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language: a system that structures parts, wholes, and the relation with each other and their immediate context. Most importantly, built within this pattern system lies both the means for sharing patterns and the rule sets for generating new ones2. Hence, he refers to this language as an open-source system that holds the patterns which grants life to towns and buildings3 and that should be expanded and adjusted to specific contexts and situations.

CHAPTER 1.2

“The people can shape buildings for themselves, and have done it for centuries, by using languages which I call pattern languages. A pattern language gives each person who uses it, the power to create an infinite variety of new and unique buildings, just as his ordinary language gives him the power to create an infinite variety of sentences.” 4 Christopher Alexander Moreover, the rule-set is systematized as a hierarchical decentralized network of relationships. We are interested in evaluating how can the behavior of a specific group of people engaging under these systemic networks participate in self-organizing communities. The behavior can be evaluated in a simulated environment where diverse decision-trees account for an organic emergence of communities. Hence, we can analyze it in a “game-theory” framework in which the decisions of every “player” has local and global consequences within the social-networks and the spatial configuration of the system. The set of actions played out individually in this simulated environment can be framed within Peter Sloterdijk’s vision of the “Foam City” where he describes the co-relations between individuals, each of them co-isolated in the built environment. Sloterdijk states that the behavior of an individual (illustrated as a monadic cell) within an urban medium determines the configuration of a social -network. The latter corresponding to a composition of bubble like network, accounting for a foam structure by nature dynamic and time-based. Consequently, considering the city’s networks as colliding ego-spheres in foam-like structure, enhances its adaptability thanks to the emergent capability of associative individualities5. Finally, the objective of this research is to structure systems that inherit these properties, accounting for time and social dynamics as shaping agents of architecture. These systems ideally would allow a rich exchange of relations between individuals having a direct impact on the overall spatial configuration of their communities within a specific contextual environment. Ultimately, these bottom-up organizations will accommodate the complexity and diversity of the city through local specificity in hands of its inhabitants.

Proportion of

Social rented 30% 20% 10%

Private rented

LONDON HOUSING SITUATION 0%

1970

1960

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Index of average house prices, adjusted for RPI inﬂation

“People cannot be genuinely comfortable and healthy in a house which is not theirs. £500,000 All forms of rental – whether from private landlord or public housing agencies – work London against the natural processes which allow people to form stable, self-healing communities.” 6 £400,000 Christopher Alexander Population growth around many high-density cities around the world is becoming a £300,000 concerning fact in developed and undeveloped cities in which London is no exception. Living conditions across all inhabitants are being affected by this trend. EnglandIt has been followed by an increase in household demand in a pace and financial model £200,000 that current supply cannot sustain. From several decades London has been witness of a consistent rise in housing prices and an increased relation between the number of£100,000 householders and dwellings available. Hence, it is no surprise that most young professionals cannot afford to buy their own home. This has inevitably led to an increase proportion of households currently being rented over those which are owner occupied, an increase in overcrowded households (particularly in social rented tenures). 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

How are people aged 25-34 housed? 60% Home owners

40% Private renters 20% Social renters 0% 2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Image 1.3.1: Households currently being rented vs privately owned. (2017)

Length of time in current home by tenure, London 35% 30% 25%

20%

Social rented Owner occupied All tenures

15% 10% 5%

Private rented

ÂŁ300,000 England ÂŁ200,000

ÂŁ100,000

CHAPTER 1.3 1970

1975 1980 1985

1990 1995 2000 2005

2010 2015

The supply of housing is currently being operated almost as a free market. the interHowHousing are people aged 25-34 housed? vention that exists (i.e. Benefit, Buy-to-Let tax et. al.) does not attend realis60%social needs. Developers acting rationally within this environment are interested tically and encouraged to maximize their profits increasing prices, seek stable purchasers Home owners and sale properties slowly, minimizing, in turn, affordable home provision. Moreover, research by Molior shows that nearly 61 per cent of newly built housing properties are being bought as investment (a considerate proportion of these being from overseas 40% investors) and only 32 per cent account for those wanting to live in them. Most concerningly, as a Pareto distribution, 80 percent of the new build market is affordable to Private renters only 20 percent of the working households7. 20% important consideration is the rate by which London householders and rentAnother ers move from their homes. Approximately one in eight households and one in three Social renters private renters have lived in their home for less than a year and more than two thirds of this movement in the last year were either into or within the private rented sector8. The main0%reasons given by the households were to move to better areas, needed a larger home or2004 for working2006 motives. 2008 2010 2012 2014

Length of time in current home by tenure, London 35% 30% Social rented

25%

Owner occupied

20%

All tenures

15% 10% Private rented

less than 1 year

1 year

2 years

3-4 years

5-9 years

10-19 years

Image 1.3.2: Household rotation rate (2017)

Affordability ratios in London lower quartile and median house prices and earnings 14 Lower quartile 12 10 8 6 4

Median

20% Social renters 0% LONDON HOUSING SITUATION 2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Lastly, on the scope of this research, is worth noting a loneliness epidemic spreading Length of timeEvery in current home tenure, London against common thought. day we getby more digital connections with friends, family, working peers, and others; nevertheless, we are losing physical interaction in the 35% same proportion. Studies conducted by the Mental Health Foundation show that 61 per cent of the population ranging from 18 to 34 years old, are feeling lonely and, along 30% many observers, believe that changes in the way we work and live in the 21st century Social rented are having a negative impact on our mental and emotional health. 25% Owner occupied

Architecture, through design and social sensitivity can address most of the problems 20% tenures described above. Our research is highly motivated by these concernsAll acknowledging that the tools and technologies we have at our disposition can be used as creative 15% agents for the upfront task. From the construction perspective, automated technologies are already being tested and applied on the field and constitute a promising frame10% work for tackling inefficiencies, ineffectiveness and labor shortage from the supply side. Finally, this research rethinks the traditional development system currently undergoing Private rented 5% on most major city centers. We are proposing an alternate method where homeowners can participate in the design and development of their homes attending their specific and contextual needs. less than 1 year

1 year

2 years

3-4 years

5-9 years

10-19 years

Affordability ratios in London lower quartile and median house prices and earnings 14 Lower quartile 12

Median

10 8 6 4 2

1998

2000

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Image 1.3.3: Relation between house prices and yearly earnings (2017)

Proportion of

London

30% 20% 10%

England

Private rented

0% 1970

1960

1980

1990

2000

2010

CHAPTER 1.3

2020

Index of average house prices, adjusted for RPI inﬂation

2015

£500,000 London £400,000

£300,000 England £200,000

£100,000

1970

1975 1980 1985

1990 1995 2000 2005

2010 2015

Image 1.3.4: Real Housing Prices in London (2017)

How are people aged 25-34 housed? 60%

2014

Owner occupied All tenures

Private rented

Proportion of households overcrowded

Social rented

Proportion of households in London owercrowded (according to Home owners the bedfoom standars) by tenure, 1995/96 to 2014/15 18% 40% 16%

Private renters

14%

Social rented

12% 20%

Private rented

10%

Social renters

0% 6%

All tenures

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Owner occupied

Length of time in current home by tenure, London 10-19 years

35%1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Three year period ending

30%

Image 1.3.5: Overcrowding in London (2017) 25%

Owner occupied

20%

Lower quartile Median

Social rented

All tenures

15%

10% Private rented

less than 1 year

1 year

2 years

3-4 years

5-9 years

10-19 years

CHAPTER 2 PRECEDENTS & REFERENCES

Architecture and Time Our research is interested in time-based architectural models of living, consequently, most of our precedents include the fourth dimension as a structural variable. Time plays a structural role, not only in the conception of spaces but, most importantly, on the dynamics that take place within them. Some of the projects we have looked up to are: Fuller’s Dymaxion 4D Tower, Moshe Safdie’s Habitat 67’, Greg Lynn Embryological House, Kisho Kurokawa’s Nagakin Capsule Tower and Alejandro Aravena’s Quinta Monroy. Additionally, we have also studied the organic and unplanned growth of a self-organizing community in the “Torre de David” (David’s Tower) in Caracas, Venezuela. Additionally we have studied new ways of living in the 21st century, a new model that is called flat-sharing enroute to home-ownership: ‘Park-Bernstein 100 Ways to Use 100 sqm’. Continuing with the “co-living”, we have critically observed four examples of co-living communities located in London. Finally, we have looked up to the German model Baugruppen with two of its examples. Some of these projects and ideas have leveraged on technological leaps in history, and, most of them, have incorporated in their design variables such as flexibility, adaptability, specificity and diversification. These qualities allow them to adapt to change according to the social dynamics played in a time-based environment. Ultimately, we are interested in incorporating some of these concepts and explore their incidence in a design spaces within a computational framework.

THE OIKOS

The ancient Greeks used the word Oikos to refer to three related concepts: the family, the family’s property and the house. The oikos is still nowadays the basic unit of society and have been submitted to multiple interpretations throughout history. Most of these approaches have been leveraged in technological advancements or critical historical periods in time. The Case Study Houses program developed after WWII constitute a relevant example. In particular, we are interested in the approach undertaken by Eames and John Entenza, who advocated innovative uses of wartime materials and technologies, as well as collaborations with sociologists, economists, and scientists, to solve the housing shortage following the war period. They developed a keen interpretation of the dynamics within family households, digested the post-war socio-economic crisis and developed a novel perspective on the use of new technologies and materials at the time. Ultimately, the elaborated a manifesto for industrialized prefabrication to realize a vision of mass-produced single-family suburban homes that would be affordable to all as illustrated in image 2.1.0. These concepts were later on materialized in their well-known Case Study House Number 8.

Image 2.1.0: Charles’s diagram for “What is a House?”

VERTICAL CITIES CHAPTER 2.1

In his famous Dymaxion 4D Tower, Buckminster Fuller throughout his work explored two simple yet powerful ideas: incorporating the 4th dimension as a structural core of design and a ‘lightful’ construction that would accommodate the former. The Dymaxion 4D Tower project illustrate these concepts in an adaptable structure that can respond to specific needs according to local rules without losing its overall coherence. This project’s design and structure is flexible to different conditions and requirement. Units can be added or subtracted according to the social dynamics that take place in a specific moment in its life. Each unit is structurally independent from the rest of the system so they can be added or removed without affecting the overall configuration of the complex. Lastly, the 4D Tower is conceived to be ‘moveable’. Fuller presented a structure that could be transported by a vehicle (i.e. an airship) to different sites according to user demands. (Image 2.1.1) All these promising concepts and ideas have yet to be revised and evaluated according to the actual unit and overall structural design. Since units are layered as a ‘cake’, adding and removing units is very limited: only the unit above can be taken out and an additional one can only be placed on the top. Yet, having a separated structure from the units represent an intelligent approach to accommodate changes.

air-transit air-transit relocate relocate inrelocate site inrelocate site extend extend vertically vertically add add more more as required as add required complete complete air-transit air-transit air-transit air-transit relocate in site relocate in site in construction siteinconstruction site construction construction construction construction extend extend extend vertically vertically extend vertically vertically add add more more asmore add required asmore required as required as required complete complete complete complete

Image 2.1.1: Time dimension of Dymaxion 4D Tower, adding and substructing units.

VERTICAL CITIES

Like Fuller’s Dymaxion 4D Tower, the Nakagin Capsule Tower incorporates time as a structural variable. Although, the latter incorporates an additional component worth mentioning: the capability to combine units or ‘capsules’ to form larger spaces when needed. Each capsule is made of offsite and contains a built-in bed and drop-in bathroom unit. Kurokawa’s capsules offers the freedom by minimizing the domestic choices the inhabitant had to make and maximizing the flexibility of the larger organism to accommodate future versions of itself.1 The building was originaly designed as a hotel to provide affordable accommodations, then evolved into a multi-use complex, alternating between varying combinations of hotel, residential, and office uses for the past 35 years.2 This project, similar to the previous one, separates the structure of the complex from the units making change and adaptation more flexible without altering the overall structural integrity. Nevertheless, we found that the original plan of integrating capsules to form larger spaces hardly ever took place along the building’s life period. Most likely, the intended strategy was unsuccessful because units were not flexible given their construction and structural condition: prefabricated concrete boxes. Altering the sides of the capsules must probably is accompanied by high cost and structural compromise.

Image 2.1.2: Nakagin Capsule Tower, addition of prefabricated capsules.

CHAPTER 2.1

Moshe Safdie’s Habitat 67’ contrasts sharply with the previously described projects. In one hand, this project does not engage with time in its planning and development. Nevertheless, that does not imply that it has not been transformed over time to accommodate its inhabitants’ new ways of living. From this project we are interested in the spatial qualities of each unit and the overall complex. Safdie had one beautiful idea in his mind: “for everyone a garden” which challenged the status quo. Back in time, he reinterpreted the future of living contrasting with Le Corbusier and Mies Van der Rohe’s housing models which he explicitly found “inhuman”. Safdie’s model defied the traditional apartment units block by approaching each of them as a ‘house’ in a vertical living complex. The project was constructed entirely of interlocking prefabricated concrete modules that cluster and create living spaces for different needs. The project emerged from a bottom-up design approach that the singular create the collective.3 Fourteen typologies of houses are created by configuring this modules in different ways. (Image 2.1.3) Since this units are load-bearing they cannot be transformed freely. That is a major problem when addressing future transformations as different homeowners have pointed out. Within the “box” spaces have been reconfigured but they are inherently limited to future expansion or reduction.

Image 2.1.3: Habitat ‘67, Individual modules stacked and paired, creating a variety of living unit configurations.

HOME CUSTOMIZATION CHAPTER 2.2

Greg Lynn envisioned the Embryological House as an interactive system structures by local rules where the user would be able to participate in the ‘creation’ of his domestic space using this computer-based model. It offers a series of a customized house for numbers of users. (Image 2.2.1) The program attended specific needs and requirements leveraging on contemporary fabrication processes. The structure was conceived as a flexible system since the house has no ideal or original form, each unit that is customized is unique and individual.4 The system considered not only specific living conditions for its inhabitants but also environmental and contextual relations. The main problem with Lynn’s prototype was its inability to address further transformations, in other words, it didn’t account Time as a design variable. These houses were delivered at a ‘custom-size’ personalized solution but could not be expanded or reduced according to changes in life conditions or the rotation of its inhabitants.

Image 2.2.1: Greg Lynn’s Embryological House, Variety of customized units

ADAPTABLE COMMUNITIES CHAPTER 2.3

With his 100 people housing project Quinta Monroy, Alejandro Aravena has acknowledged time as a shaping factor in sub-urban informal communities. Most of his social housing projects have introduced this variable in the design scheme allowing transformation to take place as an organic process in these communities. In Quinta Monroy he envisioned a layout where the inhabitants could ‘grow’ or add units to their houses according on their specific needs in time and economical availability. (Image 2.3.1) They could also participate in ‘customizing’ the appearance and façade of their houses since most people in this communities want to differentiate themselves from their neighbours. Aravena’s model is far from perfect. These housing complexes lack spatial qualities that dignify the spaces and the living conditions of the people they are trying to accommodate. Still, we highlight that his model allows the inhabitants to participate in the design and development process of their houses which has resulted in a very satisfactory solution for them. Additionally, the transformation is played within specific ‘rules’ set by Aravena and his team which allows the complex to maintain its overall coherence and functionality.

prefabrica

prefabricated compone prefabricated components

prefabricated components

Image 2.3.1: Alejandro Aravena’s Quinto Monroy Housing project, expansion of the houses.

ADAPTABLE COMMUNITIES

Diametrically opposed to Aravena’s Social Housing project, the ‘Tower of David’ represent an organic bottom-up example of a community formation. Taking aside the concerning issues of criminality, unhealthy conditions and vandalism, the growth of this communities constitutes an interesting topic of study for self-organizing communities taken from a visceral social behaviour. The initial project was conceived as an office tower that would accommodate a local Bank. Due to a banking crisis during the initial stages of the project, the construction of the tower came to a halt and it remained abandoned during several years. On the other hand, socio-economic problems intensified during the new millennium and, in consequence, different people organized to appropriate empty spaces of the city, such as the ‘Tower of David’, to create their own informal communal living spaces. The development of these informal social systems started with a few houses and rapidly increased to overpopulate the entire structure. Families were adapting the available space to their specific needs in a precarious living condition. It is worth noticing that a social structure emerged alongside the growth of this community where new inhabitants had to pay a “rent” in order to access “public services” such as water, electricity and security, informal by nature. This development, while polemic, represent an interesting study model of how social-dynamics can participate in structuring communities. The rules by which these behaviours emerge, account for the overall configuration and determine its success. In this the Tower of David, the rules were determined by basic, visceral human instincts, hence, the community that emerged from these dynamics are a reflection and repetition of these relations.

Image 2.3.2: Torre de David, in Venezuela, process growing informal living spaces.

CHAPTER 2.3

On a different scope of adaptable communities, with “100 Ways to Use 100 sqm” Julia Park and Levitt Bernstein’s model proposes flat-sharing en-route to home ownership, based on predefined rules. As we stated in the Chapter 1, a big proportion of young professionals are spending up to 75% of their earnings in rent. The properties they can afford (leveraging on mortgages) are too small and inflexible to future growth to become reasonable long-term homes. The shell is designed to work as one, two, three or four separate homes and house up to five people. (Figure 2.3.3) It can remain whole, or split into halves or quarters to provide. It allows a flexible usage of the space according to the economic status of the owner.5 For example, the latter can acquire his house leveraging on a mortgage while he is renting part of the property to pay for it. As he capitalizes with the income from his tenant he can increase his “private” or not rented space. Additionally, the project can address different needs of its inhabitants while remaining flexible enough to adapt to future transformations. Even though people can share, they still retain their privacy. Finally, The project embraces custom build, co-housing, mutual support, multi-generational living and more flexible forms of tenure and temporary housing6 that can accommodate specificity in needs and lifestyles.

1 x 3b5p (three-bedroom ﬁve person) ﬂat of 100 sqm

2 x 1b2p ﬂat of 50 sqm

1 x 3b5p (three-bedroom ﬁve person) ﬂat of 100 sqm

2 x 1b2p ﬂat of 50 sqm

1 x 2b4p ﬂat of 75 sqm + 1 x 1p studio (or integral bedsit) of 25 sqm

4 x 1p studios of 25 sqm

Image 2.3.3:”100 Ways to use 100 sqm model“ offers different seperations in the house that can accommodate variety of flats

1 x 2b4p ﬂat of 75 sqm + 1 x 1p studio (or integral bedsit) of 25 sqm

4 x 1p studios of 25 sqm

CO-LIVING IN LONDON

“Housing not only provides essential shelter but also gives form to the social.” 7 In addition to the architectural references, we have explored some models of living where social interactions (i.e. sharing) play an important role in the way spaces are conceptualized. We are interested in developing a co-living model based on local rules where the social dynamics can participate in the spatial configuration of communities and the interactions that occur within them. Co-living as its definition, is not only people sharing rooms, facilities, and services as in flat-sharing; but also unite around a common interest to collaboratively manage a space, share resources, and coordinate activities and encourage interactions. We see co-living as a possible solution to loneliness in big cities, and a respond to the need to feel part of a community. There are now quite a few examples of co-living especially in London.

Image 2.4.1: Common space at the Collective

‘The Collective’, as the world’s biggest co-living building located in London, accommodates 550 people. It has a particular target group of young professionals, which is the majority of the population at the Collective, with a minority that consists middle-aged people and families. Their motto is “connect, collaborate, socialize.”8 Even though the facilities and services are shared, the rent prices are higher than everage rent in London, with particularly smaller rooms. They claim, the focus is more on the common rooms instead of private, to encourage interaction between people. We believe what makes co-living succesful, and different from any way of flat sharing or student dormitory is the sense of community. It is obvious that Collective offers more convenient lifestyle for its residents, however, some residents believe the sense of community is missing. According to an interview made with the people currently live there, some claimed that majority of residents aren’t interested in meeting with anyone. While The Collective says they are “constantly working to understand how we can help improve the growth of community.”9

CHAPTER 2.4

Based on the same article an interview has been made with the residents in ‘Roam’, a 35-people co-living community in Chelsea, London along with the other big cities in the world such as Tokyo, San Francisco. The target group of Roam is composed of professionals, who chooses to work on different locations in the world. The rent prices are significantly higher than everage rent in London, almost double the Collective; with relatively small rooms. However as opposed to some of the residents of Collective, the residents in Roam state that they’re satisfied with the co-living, community and “luxurious” facilities Roam offers. As it is difficult to pinpoint what exactly gives the community feeling to co-living, observing what people who actually lives in the space think may lead to an answer. Residents at the Roam are all people coming from abroad for a few months or a year, professionals with a relatively similar lifestyle or interests, whereas Collective is open and welcoming for wider age range or occupation of people. The scale of two examples are quite different as well; one accommodates 550, the other 35. These two examples are might be the ones that accommodates lower and higher number of people. Numbers of other co-living examples in London offers different range of scale and target group. One of the other co-living communities in London is “Lyvly”, which focuses on building curated communities. Their motto is “Live in beautiful homes with amazing people.”4 Different from the others, potential residents go through an application process starting with online questionnaire. Residents should be simply met the criteria of over 25 years old, single and a non-smoker. If the application process is successfuly completed, users could customize their living space. Lyvly offers stay for comperatively longer than the others, with a contract for 1 - 3 years. ‘Startuphome’, aims for a specific target group of young entrepreneurs who work in technology. It offers to gather these young professionals in the same place for innovation, sharing ideas and diversity. It is co-working and co-researching as much as it’s co-living. It offers many technological services within the complex to fulfill the needs of its specific target group. It has a location in London and Philedelphia, however, it offers a oppurtunity to grow the startup in other cities. What makes startuphome unique is that any young entrepreneurs can have a chance to be a part of creating a community in other locations.

Image 2.4.2: Startuphome

SELF BUILDING COMMUNITIES

The Baugruppen—German for “building groups”—is one model for constructing housing in this future of architect-led, collectively funded community-based living.10 In Germany, where new models for housing have emerged, ones that take ideas about communal living out of the realm of hippie collectives or alt-squats and into the pragmatic territory of pooled finances and homeownership.11 R50 Baugruppen project proposes a collective ownership of a co-living, to ease some of the problems of the housing market. For R50, the architects gathered potential residents from their networks. 19 households built the building together: Funds were pooled for construction and the purchase of the plot. Therefore R50 is not only community and living model but also a financing model is that it was designed with the intensive participation of its residents. The architects facilitated the process, starting with the founding of the building group, leading participatory planning and design meetings. The residents opted to make the ground floor a shared space—sensible given restrictions on locating apartments in the neighborhood—that includes a double-height community room and laundry facility. (Image 2.2.3) Instead of individual balconies, each floor has a wrap-around collective balcony, each window thus becomes a door to the in-house street, facilitating new lifestyles and new demands.12 (Image 2.2.3) What makes this idea unique is that it proposes a new living model, not co-living where an architect designs the housing and people rent the predefined spaces: R50 Baugruppen is designed by the people who live in. The place is owned by a community, who worked together with the architects through the design process. It proposes communal ownership rather than individual. It offers a way for more people to act as developers, cooperatively creating buildings and communities.

Image 2.5.1: R50 Baugruppen community room

Image 2.5.2: R50 Baugruppen collective balcony

CHAPTER 2.5

Baugruppen Kurfürstenstraße is a housing project consists of six towers, that overlap themselves, both vertically and horizontaly. There are no clear boundaries between the different units/apartments and the structure of the house can be seen as one large single space continuum. This simple principle leads to endless variations of organisation and spatial combinations. (Image 2.5.3) The modular structure allows for a wide range of uses and varying degrees of isolation and openness.13 Some units are also connected to each other by a shared space and they all have a close relation to the inner courtyard garden, shared roof top terraces and other public spaces within the building. Neither the cohabitation nor the sharing is enforced by the architecture; though the flexibility allows the inhabitants within the building to create their private and shared spaces according to their own special needs.14

Image 2.5.3: Baugruppen Kurfürstenstraße, flexible configuration of the floor plans

CHAPTER 3 SOCIAL DYNAMICS

3 SIMULATING SOCIAL DYNAMICS Our research is interested in the behaviour of social dynamics and how, through their understanding, can architecture incorporate them to create spatially rich and adaptable communities to a particular environment. Our initial approach is to play out these be-haviours throughout a “spatial game” framework. The set of local actions unfolded by each participant have a direct conse-quence in the overall spatial configuration and the particular condition of other players. Mostly we are interested in developing a gaming environment by which we can evaluate the decision-making tree of different agents according to specific parameters. Each game explored has a set of rules, costs and rewards that condition and delimit each player’s move. Ultimately, the actions taken locally by each participant will determine their living space and ill have a positive or negative impact in the condition of other players.

GAME THEORY

THE GOAL: OCCUPYING MORE SPACE

How to start The game starts with a four colour chessboard representing the territories of four players. The players start at the central points and choose their certain direction to occupy more space.

blue player’s starting point blue player’s territory

How to play Four players starting from the centre, occupy the spaces by growing in two directions. Players take their steps simultanenously each turn. For each of them, occupying others’ territory is more valuable than their own area.

CHAPTER 3.1

If both of the steps occupy the same square at the same time, none of those two players scores and the square remains empty.

How to win Game finishes when all the area is conquered. The player who conquered the most valuable area in total wins.

GAME THEORY

THE GOAL: OCCUPYING MORE SPACE

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 2 1 2

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 3 2 3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

3 4 3 4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

4 4 4 4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

5 5 5 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

6 6 6 6

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

7 7 7 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

8 8 8 8

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 9 9 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

10 10 10 10

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

11 11 11 11

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

13 13 13 13

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

14 14 14 14

CHAPTER 3.1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

15 15 15 15

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

16 16 16 16

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

17 17 17 17

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

20 17 17 17

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

21 18 18 18

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

23 19 19 19

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

23 19 19 22

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

24 20 20 23

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

25 21 21 24

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

26 22 22 25

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

27 23 23 26

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

27 23 23 26

LEGO GAME

THE GOAL: CONNECTING ALL YOUR TILES

How to start The gmae starts with a simple setup. Each player is represented by a color. The goal is to connect all your initial tiles.

How to play Players locate their tiles one by one to connect their existing tiles. Players build their new chips on, beneath and by the side of the previews ones. They can connect either horizontally or vertically.

CHAPTER 3.2

Opponents might block each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s way. Players may need to go to the upper levels.

How to win

The first player who completes the loop wins.

LEGO GAME

THE GOAL: CONNECTING ALL YOUR TILES

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 0 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1 1 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 2 1 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 2 2 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 2 2 2

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

3 2 2 2

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

3 3 2 2

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

3 3 3 2

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

3 3 3 3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

4 3 3 3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

4 4 3 3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

4 4 4 3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

4 4 4 4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

5 4 4 4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

5 5 4 4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

5 5 5 4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

5 5 5 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

6 5 5 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

6 6 5 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

6 6 6 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

6 6 6 6

CHAPTER 3.2

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

7 6 6 6

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

7 7 6 6

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

7 7 7 6

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

7 7 7 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

8 7 7 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

8 8 7 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

8 8 8 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

8 8 8 8

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 8 8 8

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 9 8 8

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 9 9 8

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 First! 9 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

10 First! 9 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

10 First! 9 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! 9 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! 10 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! 10 10

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! 11 10

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! 11 11

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! 12 11

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! 12 12

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! Third! 12

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! Third! 13

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

Second! First! Third! 13

GRID GAME

THE GOAL: OCCUPYING MORE SPACE

How to start The game starts with an empty grid. Each player is represented by a color.

Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4

How to play Players locate the lines on the grid from the boundaries each turn, starting from the corner unit.in the grid. If a square is closed by the same color, it becomes their private space.

CHAPTER 3.3

The private space only forms by closing the four boundaries. Additionally, a square can also be shared by more than one players with different proportions.

Each square space values four points. If players share the square, they also share the points.

2 2

1 1

How to win The player who occupies the biggest area wins.

Player 1: 14 Player 2: 15 Player 3: 15 Player 4: 17

GRID GAME

THE GOAL: OCCUPYING MORE SPACE

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1.5 1.5 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1.5 1.5 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1.5 1.5 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1.5 1.5 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1.5 1.5 0

CHAPTER 3.3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1.5 1.5 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1.5 2.5 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1.5 2.5 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1.5 2.5 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1.5 2.5 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2 1.5 2.5 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 2.75 2.5 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 2.75 2.5 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 2.75 2.5 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 2.75 3 1.5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 2.75 3 1.5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 2.75 3 1.75

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 2.75 3 1.75

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 3 3 2.5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 3 3 2.5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 3 4.5 2.5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 3 4.5 2.5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

2.75 3 4.5 4.

CREATURE GAME

THE GOAL: CREATING MORE CREATURES

How to start The game starts with an hexagonal grid board with only a few predefined â&#x20AC;&#x153;publicâ&#x20AC;? tiles. Each player is represented by a color. Each player starts the game with same amount of variety of tiles. The coloured parts represent the private area and the black parts are the shared space. The black tile is the preset public space.

How to play Turn by turn, players must locate one of their tiles in preferred rotation, by following three simple rules: Two different colour parts or players can connect only through their shared space, the same colour parts can also connect trough their private space, and shared spaces can connect to the public space.

shared + shared

private + private 46

shared + public

CHAPTER 3.4

Players create “creatures” by connecting their shard spaces. The objective of the game is to create as much closed “black creatures” as possible, so players have to play collaboratively, but sometime aggressively at the same time.

creatures

How to win Once there is no space to put tiles, the game ends. The scores are calculated by those shared or black space connecting to the closed creatures. The player who has the highest score would be the winner.

CREATURE GAME

THE GOAL: CREATING MORE CREATURES

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

1 1 1 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

3 2 1 3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

4 3 2 3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

7 5 2 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

7 8 5 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

7 8 5 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

8 9 6 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 9 6 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 12 8 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 12 8 10

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

9 15 10 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

10 15 10 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

10 17 13 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

13 17 14 10

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

15 19 14 13

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

15 20 17 13

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

17 20 18 14

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

17 21 19 14

CHAPTER 3.4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

22 21 19 15

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

22 22 20 15

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

24 22 20 16

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

24 23 20 16

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

26 23 20 17

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

26 24 21 17

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

26 24 21 20

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

26 27 23 23

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

29 27 25 23

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

29 28 25 24

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

30 28 25 24

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

30 31 26 27

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

31 31 27 28

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

31 36 27 34

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

35 36 29 34

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

35 38 29 35

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

40 38 32 35

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

40 40 32 38

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

41 41 34 38

Red Player: Yellow Player: Green Player: Blue Player:

41 45 WIN! 37 38

GAME OF LIGHT

THE GOAL: CONQUERING SPACE

Game of Light is a multi-player game that qualifies spaces by their relation to their neighbours. The final goal of the game is to conquer as much â&#x20AC;&#x153;spaceâ&#x20AC;? as possible. The rules by which the game evolves are based on variables of loneliness and overcrowd. Tiles are differentiated representing private, shared and public spaces. In addition, private ones are classified by colours representing each player participating in the game. The subdivision of the board and shape of the tiles are related to a packing system of truncated octahedrons (see chapter 4). Hexagonal areas can be appropriated by surrounding them with same coloured tiles (a particular player), with exception of the centre one which is activated at the beginning of the game acting like the seed or the future development of moves.

CHAPTER 3.5

Rules Private Units: 1. Loneliness: If a private unit has no same colour or public neighbour, it disappears. 2. Overcrowded: If a private unit has four private neighbours, it convers into a shared unit.

loneliness rule

overcrowded rule Shared Units: 1. Loneliness: If a shared unit has less than two neighbours, it disappears. 2. Overcrowded: If a shared unit has four private unit neighbours of the same clour, it turns into a private space.

loneliness rule

overcrowded rule 51

GAME OF LIGHT

THE GOAL: CONQUERING SPACE

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

0 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

1 0 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

1 1 0 0

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

2 1 1 1

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

3 2 2 2

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

4 3 3 3

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

4 4 4 4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

6 5 5 4

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

6 4 5 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

7 5 5 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

7 5 6 5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

7 5 6 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

8 6 6 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

8 6 7 6

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

9 6 7 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

9 7 8 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

10 7 8 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

10 8 9 7

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

11 8 9 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

11 9 9 8

CHAPTER 3.5

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

10 9 10 8

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

11 9 10 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

11 10 10 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

11 10 11 9

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

11 10 11 10

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

11 11 11 10

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

12 11 12 10

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

12 11 12 11

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

13 12 12 11

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

13 12 13 11

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

13 10 13 12

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

14 10 13 11

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

14 11 14 12

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

15 11 14 12

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

15 12 14 12

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

15 12 15 12

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

15 12 15 13

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

17 12 15 13

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

17 13 15 13

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

17 12 16 14

SHARE-MATE GAME

THE GOAL: ACCUMULATE POINTS

The objective of the game is to accumulate as much “points” as possible, so players will have to play collaboratively and aggressively depending on their particular situation. We are interested in evaluating players’ willingness to share introducing an economic factor of cost and reward. The board is predefined as a starting scene. The subdivision is related to a packing system of truncated octahedrons (see chapter 4). Hexagonal areas are potential public spaces that can be activated during the game with exception of the centre one which is activated at the beginning of the game acting like the seed or the future development of moves.

CHAPTER 3.6

Tiles

As with the creature game, three types of tiles representing how much people is willing to share also assigning different cost structures to each of them. The grid incorporates an initial public space which can be related to the vertical circulation.

shared space private space

one-shared-space unit private space

two-shared-space unit

three-shared-space unit

game board

Configurations Instead of having a fixed tile, some rules has been assigned to represent where the shared space can be incorporated since they are also related with the circulations of the space horizontally and vertically.

SHARE-MATE GAME

THE GOAL: ACCUMULATE POINTS

Cost & Reward A cost is needed each time when a unit is placed. Players get points once their shared units are completely closed. cost

reward

£ 4000

£ 5000

£ 3000

£ 5000

£ 2000

£ 5000

P1: £ 5000 P2: £ 5000 P3: £ 5000 P4: £ 5000

As stated before, each tile has a different cost structure. A player who is willing to share less (1 tile) will cost more than a player that is willing to share more (directly related to the amount of private space that it can access).

P1: £ 3000 P2: £ 5000 P3: £ 5000 P4: £ 5000 1

P1: £ 3000 P2: £ 2000 P3: £ 5000 P4: £ 5000

P1: £ 3000 P2: £ 2000 P3: £ 1000 P4: £ 5000 3

P1: £ 8000 P2: £ 2000 P3: £ 1000 P4: £ 2000

P1: £ 9000 P2: £ 5000 P3: £ 5000 P4: £ 7000 5

CHAPTER 3.6

Connections The game requires that players start related to a public or a shared space (another player tile). Player must connect through their shared spaces as well. The peripheral hexagonal tiles are potential shared or public spaces that are trigger or activated only when at least three players connect a shared space to it. Players only get reward points when their shared whishing potential has been fulfilled.

shared + public

Potential shared space converts into the public space get activated if at least three neighbours connect to it.

shared + shared

Players earn points everytime their shared units are completely closed.

SHARE-MATE GAME

THE GOAL: ACCUMULATE POINTS.

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 5000 £ 5000 £ 5000 £ 5000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 3000 £ 5000 £ 5000 £ 5000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 3000 £ 3000 £ 2000 £ 5000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£0 £ 3000 £ 7000 £ 3000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 5000 £ 5000 £ 5000 £ 8000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 5000 £ 5000 £ 5000 £ 9000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 3000 £ 5000 £ 5000 £ 9000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 3000 £ 3000 £ 5000 £ 9000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 8000 £ 3000 £ 2000 £ 9000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 8000 £ 3000 £ 2000 £ 6000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 4000 £ 3000 £ 2000 £ 6000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 14000 £ 3000 £ 2000 £ 6000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 14000 £0 £ 2000 £ 6000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 14000 £0 £ 7000 £ 6000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 14000 £ 5000 £ 5000 £ 6000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 14000 £ 5000 £ 10000 £ 7000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 11000 £ 10000 £ 10000 £ 7000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 11000 £ 8000 £ 10000 £ 12000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 11000 £ 8000 £ 7000 £ 12000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 11000 £ 8000 £ 7000 £ 9000

CHAPTER 3.6

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 8000 £ 8000 £ 7000 £ 9000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 13000 £ 5000 £ 7000 £ 9000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 13000 £ 5000 £ 4000 £ 9000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 13000 £ 10000 £ 9000 £ 14000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 13000 £ 15000 £ 9000 £ 15000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 10000 £ 15000 £ 9000 £ 15000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 10000 £ 12000 £ 9000 £ 15000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 10000 £ 17000 £ 10000 £ 15000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 10000 £ 17000 £ 10000 £ 12000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 7000 £ 17000 £ 10000 £ 12000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 12000 £ 17000 £ 15000 £ 17000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 12000 £ 14000 £ 15000 £ 17000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 12000 £ 14000 £ 16000 £ 17000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 12000 £ 14000 £ 16000 £ 18000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 8000 £ 14000 £ 16000 £ 18000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 18000 £ 14000 £ 21000 £ 18000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 18000 £ 10000 £ 21000 £ 18000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 18000 £ 10000 £ 22000 £ 18000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 18000 £ 10000 £ 22000 £ 19000

Red Player: Yellow Player: Blue Player: Green Player:

£ 18000 £ 10000 £ 22000 £ 19000

OIKOS GAME DESCRIPTION

On this last iteration of games, we introduced many factors previously discussed and explored in a more realistic environment. Here, we are including into consideration factors such as “Views”, private terraces or gardens and amount light per unit space and Player’s Values according to their specific willingness to share, their personal appreciation towards having a nice view or their own terrace/garden. Thus, the Player’s Satisfaction is intrinsically related to each of these values. This game can be “played” as single-player or multiplayer mode, being the latter unlimited regarding the maximum number of participants. The game’s final objective is to maximize the Player’s Satisfaction in relation to the respective “Available Points”. The latter represents the initial budget by which each player can exchange for their “Property Units”. As before, players can agree to arrange shared spaces among their respective units which increase their Living Area in relation to their Available Points and Property Units. Additionally, three players can arrange their units in specific ways to “activate” public spaces which will in turn increase their satisfaction. In addition, the game introduces a vertical component: players can decide to place their units in the “z” direction, growing the complex vertically. This action follows a rule of property by which it will create double heights depending if the unit above/bellow is of the same “owner”. It is worth noting that, as with the other games, each player’s moves or decisions has a direct impact on the way the game unfolds and can directly affect the Satisfaction of other players in the game: i.e. a Player-1 unit placement can block the view, private terrace or lighting conditions of Player-3. As stated before, the Player’s Satisfaction computes the values each player gives to specific factors; additionally, it is also affected by lighting factors and their relation to a public space. These parameters are adjusted by default values which players don’t have control over. Changes in these parameters ultimately affect players’ actions, as well as the respective unit’s costs.

CHAPTER 3.7 Calculating Player’s Satisfaction (PS): PS = PA + PSH + PV + PT + PU + L0 + L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 PAv PSHv PVv PTv PUv L0v L1v L2v L3v L4v PA = Amount of Property Units PAv = Player’s Own Area Value PSH = Amount of Sharing Units PSHv = Player’s Shared Area Value PV = Amount of Units with Views PVv = Player’s Views’ Value PT = Amount of Units with Private Terrace PTv = Player’s Terrace Value PU = Amount of Units next to Public PUv = 0.1

L0 = Light on Zero Sides L1 = Light on One Side L2 = Light on Two Sides L3 = Light on Three Sides L4 = Light on Four Sides L0v = - 0.01 L1v = 0.1 L2v = 0.05 L3v = 0.1 L4v = - 0.5

Initial Budget PA PSH PA + PSH PT PV L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 PU PVv PTv PAv PSHv

OIKOS GAME 3D GAME SCENARIO

Unit Cost Each player starts with 5000 Available points which parallel the initial budget. There are two types of units related to the truncated octahedron (see chapter 4) which we assigned different “cost” according to their size. The big unit (bottom-right image) holds a value-cost of 1500 points while the smaller (bottom-left image) has a value-cost of 1000 points.

Initial State and Unit Placement Rules The initial state of the game contains a “Public Space” which represent the Seed from which players can start to grow their Living Area. Additionally, a player can increment their Living Area by Horizontal and Vertical placement of the units. These actions obey simple rules. Like previously developed games, each player can place their respective units in the “horizontal plane” by selecting which side of an already-placed unit he wishes to grow their property from. Note that a player can only grow horizontally from a unit of his own (represented by the same color).

CHAPTER 3.7

OIKOS GAME 3D GAME SCENARIO

Scenic Views Every scene in the simulated environment shows a particular set of elements that correspond to a “scenic view”. In the following diagrams the former is represented by a sphere. At the beginning of the game a player will be asked to adjust his corresponding parameter at how much he values having a scenic view in his property/living space. Consequently, considering this value, the player will place the unit orienting the spaces toward the “scenery”, in this case the sphere. Likewise, the placement of a unit might come disadvantageous for other units since it might block their corresponding orientation towards the view. That negative action can occur between different players or in the same players units as well.

CHAPTER 3.7

OIKOS GAME 3D GAME SCENARIO

Light and Overcrowding

Every unit is aware of how much “light” or open space it has immediately surrounding it. Depending on how much neighbors it has a unit might range from feeling “lonely” to overcrowded and asphyxiated and a player’s satisfaction will be affected in consequence. Leveraging on the thesis presented by Christopher Alexander in “A Pattern Language”, we set default values which we are not definite but that will affect the player’s game. In that behalf, a unit which is not surrounded by any other neighbor will affect the player’s satisfaction by -2 points. One that has one neighbor and, in consequence, light in three sides will be rewarded with 10 points. If it has two neighbors and light in two sides will reach the most satisfaction and awarded 20 points. Units with three neighbors and light in only one side will account for 10 points in the PS and, finally, units completely surrounded by other units (including the same player’s) will be penalized by 100 points since won’t have light and be completely overcrowded.

CHAPTER 3.7

OIKOS GAME 3D GAME SCENARIO

Vertical Placement

In addition to the horizontal placement of the units, this game introduces vertical placement which accounts for a full 3D growth of the building complex. This feature includes, as well, the possibility to incorporate double heights in a player’s own units. If a player decides to place his next unit above another one of his own property (displayed by the same color) then a vertical spatial relation will take place between them. On the other hand, if a player decides to grow vertically above another player’s unit it won’t create a vertical relation or double height in that case. Lastly, if a player places his unit horizontally and it turns that the unit rests above another unit of the same color then a vertical relation will NOT be generated between them.

CHAPTER 3.7

OIKOS GAME 3D GAME SCENARIO

Private Terraces

Each unit is conscious of its surroundings as we have seen. In addition to the previous features it can perceive if a private terrace or garden is available to it. Note that if a unit has a double height (or no floor) next to a terrace it wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t recognize the latter. Similarly, to the Viewsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; condition, each player can adjust his personal degree of value toward this feature.

CHAPTER 3.7

OIKOS GAME 3D GAME SCENARIO

Public Spaces

Players’ actions have direct consequences on the overall configuration of the complex. Three units arranged side by side and facing their “back” to the same space, will instantiate a public space. This spaces account for general circulation around the complex and/ or different public uses of interest to the inhabitants (gym, kitchens, lounges, gardens, etc.). Units attached to theses spaces will be awarded with 10 points as default (but not definite).

CHAPTER 3.7

OIKOS GAME 3D GAME SCENARIO

Shared Spaces

Players can decide whether to expand their Living Area spending less resources (Available Points) by sharing. Each unit can potentially share with other two units. A unit can only share half of it module, hence, sharing can only occur in one of this “half modules” or adjacent walls. Considering this rule, there could be a maximum of 4 player’s units sharing a common space (without counting public ones).

CHAPTER 3.7

OIKOS GAME 3D GAME SCENARIO

Overcrowded Public Space

A Public Space (represented by the hexagonal unit) can accommodate up to five (5) â&#x20AC;&#x153;privateâ&#x20AC;? units surrounding it. Since these spaces are by nature public, it must be accessed at least by one side from the exterior. Additionally, this rule guarantees that a continuous circulation can take place throughout these spaces.

CHAPTER 3.7

CHAPTER 4 GEOMETRY AND DESIGN

4 GEOMETRY AND DESIGN This section, along with the previous one, correspond to a feedback cycle since the geometries explored are directly related to the Social Dynamic Simulation. The design and the geometry explored accommodate the variables and features explored in the 3D simulation environment thinking in advance in lightweight flexible systems for future development and research. In our researched we explored truncated octahedron packing systems influenced the foam and bubbles aggregations. We found that this packing system is one of the most efficient regarding the relation between volume and surface area. In addition, it creates more directions of relations between neighbouring cells which can improve the qualitative spatial relations within the complex.

3D AGGREGATION

A PACKING SAMPLE OF THE UNITS.

Packing Rules Units connect others through six directions. Each hexagon surface is a possible interface of two units except the top and the bottom one, which are potential floors for public space. An aggregation of the units has varies levels as well as an adaptive shape.

Perspective packing number: 22 level count: 9 room count: 132 public space count: 44

packing number: 22 level Plancount: 9 room count: 132 public space count: 44

CHAPTER 4.1

packing number: 1 level count: 4 room count: 6 public space count: 2

packing number: 2 level count: 5 room count: 12 public space count: 4

packing number: 3 level count: 6 room count: 18 public space count: 6

packing number: 4 level count: 6 room count: 24 public space count: 8

packing number: 5 level count: 6 room count: 30 public space count: 10

packing number: 6 level count: 7 room count: 36 public space count: 12

packing number: 7 level count: 7 room count: 42 public space count: 14

packing number: 8 level count: 8 room count: 48 public space count: 16

CIRCULATION MEGNETIC FIELD

Attraction and Repulsion. We explored neighbouring conditions within a magnetic field environment. There are two possible contitions: share or NOT share, each of them represented by positive and negative charges respectively. Each cell in the board is granted a positive charge Consequently, playersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; willingness to share or not share with a particular neighbor creates an attraction or repulsion force having a direct consequence in the overall configuration of the space and circulation of the system as seen in the following diagrams.

private (repulsion)

Each cell constitute a positive charge

shared (attraction)

Shared boundaries as the negitive charge

circulation (attraction)

Circulation as the positive charge

CHAPTER 4.2

Circulation as a result of playersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; actions

Willing to share: 30%

Willing to share: 60%

Willing to share: 90%

UNITS

TWO BASIC TYPES OF HOUSING UNIT

Unit types According to the spatical geometry of truncated octahedron, we developed two different types of plan with different volume. Each of them has three basic flats with reconfigurable components to share their space.

private space

wardrobe reconfigurable wall

bed

plan area: 132 m2 volume: 354 m3 flat area: 44 m2 volume: 118 m3 (restroom: 5.3 m2, shower, mirror, sink) premiere working area, bookshelf, wardrobe, bed table

working area

shared space

bathroom

plan area: 132 m2 volume: 507 m3 flat area: 44 m2 volume: 169 m3 (restroom: 5.3 m2, shower, mirror, sink) premiere working area, bookshelf, wardrobe, bed table

CHAPTER 4.3

Reconfiguration By operating the reconfigurable components, residents are able to share their space with others who have the same willing to create bigger shared rooms ig. kitchens, video game rooms, and cinemas.

2 shared flats + 1 private flat

3 private flats

3 shared flats 87

UNITS

TWO BASIC TYPES OF HOUSING UNIT

Combination The two types of unit on the same level combines in the stacking system, in this case, different flats can share their space. Besides, more than two rooms are able to share. That is, the maximum amount of shared rooms could be a large number.

plan area: 264 m2 volume: 861 m3 shared area: 28.7 m2, volume: 112 m3 amount of shared flats: 3 amount of private flats: 3

section plan

CHAPTER 4.3

Diversity of Reconfiguration Each two neighbours have the opportunity to share space with each other. A connection among more than twol rooms is possitive. A unique circulation forms on each level from the diverse reconfigurations.

shared area: 0 m2, volume: 0 m3 amount of shared flats: 0 amount of private flats: 6

shared area: 0 m2, volume: 0 m3 amount of shared flats: 0 amount of private flats: 0

shared area: 19.5 m2, volume: 74 m3 amount of shared flats: 2 amount of private flats: 4

shared area: 28.7 m2, volume: 112 m3 amount of shared flats: 3 amount of private flats: 3

CHAPTER 5 FORMAL SPECULATION

5 FORMAL SPECULATION Alongside the geometry and design of the units in the Social Dynamic Simulation, a core aspect of our research involves Formal Exploration. Ultimately, our goal is to create spaces that would ensure spatial quality and promote worthy living conditions for our communities. As a starting point and being rigorous to our initial thesis statement, we developed some experiments considering flexible systems that would accommodate changeand allow rich interactions between its inhabitants. Henceforth, we set-up speculative fomal arrangements with soap-film experiments where we would yield control to the emergence of material behavior in autonomous formation processes. The resulting form of minimal surfaces gave us insight in optimal subdivision patterns of our 3D Geometry. Lastly, we explored conceptual configurations of structure and combination of materials, related to the 3D geometry, that would perform consistently under a physical force field. For the conceptual development this structural configurations are foreseen as predecesors of a subsequent lightweight system that would accomodate housing and living requirements for the Social Dynamic Simulation.

PNEUMATIC EXPERIMENT PACKING SYSTEMS

Our initial approach to a lightweight system that would accomodate the social dynamics explored in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;gamingâ&#x20AC;? environment, constitutes a pneumatic system. Here, we developed a structural configuration where two materials would perform in reciprocity nd enhance the overall structural capacities of the system.

Pneumatic Animation

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 40.000 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 40.994 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 42.744 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 43.598 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 45.281 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 46.461 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 47.798mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 48.668 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 49.197 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 50.123 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 51.987 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 52.561 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 54.056 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 55.899 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 57.112 mm3

air pressure: 1.013 bar air volume: 58.713 mm3

CHAPTER 5.1

Flexibility

As illustrated above, the structural system is composed by two clearly defined materials. Initially, we developed a circle-packed configuration of acrylic rings that on their own could not stand physical forces. When the rubber balloon was inflated on the inside it introduced tension to the system. Finally, the rings acted in compression manteining the form and resisting further deformation of the rubber membrane. It is imperative to note that these materials served only as formal-structural configuration but are not meant to be definite in the following phase of the research.

SOAP-FILM EXPERIMENT MINIMAL SURFACES

We sectioned the base geometry (truncated octahedron) with three equivalent planes and developed our frame. We observed and analyzed the behaviour of soap tensile surfaces along the structural setting while air was introduced in different points of the system. The result of the experiment helped us develop our subdivision strategy within the packing system. We also explored ways in which units can share spaces to accomodate the social dynamics explored in the “game” environment. Changes in the configuration of these spaces constitute a challenge to be addressed afterwards in the construction and fabrication system.

CHAPTER 5.2

Liquid Topology The two types of unit on the same level combines in the stacking system, in this case, different flats can share their space. Besides, more than two rooms are able to share. That is, the maximum amount of shared rooms could be a large number.

REFERENCES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & THESIS STATEMENT Frei Otto and Bodo Rasch, Finding Form (1995),15. Molly Wright Steenson, Architectural Intelligence (2017), 49. 3 Christopher Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building (1979), 212. 4 Christopher Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building (1979), xi. 5 Catalina Ionitas, Foam City (2015), 8. 6 Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language (1977), p. 393 7 Claire Bennie, Introduction - New Ideas for Housing (2015) 8 Greater London Authority, Housing in London: 2017, p.88 9 Jo Griffin, The lonely Society (2010) The Mental Health Foundation 1 2

CHAPTER 2: PRECEDENTS & REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ` 11

12 13 14

Barry Bergdoll and Peter Christensen, Home delivery: Fabricating the Modern Dwelling, (The Museum of Modern Art, 2008), 144. Ibid Theodore Spyropoulos, Adaptive Ecologies: Correlated Systems of Living (Architectural Association, 2013), 76. Ibid New London Architecture. New Ideas for Housing. NLA Insight Study, 2015 p.24 Ibid Andrea Phillips and Fulya Erdemci, Actors, Agents and Attendants, (2010). 13. The Collective, https://www.thecollective.co.uk “Co-living in London: Friendship, fines and frustration” By Winnie Agbonlahor BBC News, London http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43090849 Maak, Niklas. “Post-familial communes in Germany.” Harvard Design Magazine: architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and planning 41 (2015): 80. “Don’t Call It A Commune: Inside Berlin’s Radical Cohousing Project” http://www. metropolismag.com/architecture/residential-architecture/dont-call-it-a-communeinside-berlin-radical-cohousing-project/ Ibid 3 Maak, Niklas. “Post-familial communes in Germany.” Harvard Design Magazine: architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and planning 41 (2015): 80. http://june-14.com/2018/building-group-kurfurstenstrase/

107

IMAGE REFERENCES

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & THESIS Image 1.3.1: James Gleeson, Housing in London 2017, (2017) Image 1.3.2: Ibid Image 1.3.3: Ibid Image 1.3.4: Ibid Image 1.3.5: Ibid

CHAPTER 2 PRECEDENTS & REFERENCES Image 2.1.0: What is a House?, Eames, Arts & Architecture, July 1944 (A-42) Image 2.1.3: Habitat â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;67. Spyropoulos, Theodore, Adaptive Ecologies: Correlated Systems of Living. Architectural Association, 2013, 77. Image 2.4.1: Common space at the Collective, https://www.thecollective.co.uk/, Accessed April 19, 2018. Image 2.4.2: Startuphome, https://startuphome.io/, Accessed April 19, 2018. Image 2.5.1: R50 Baugruppen community room, ttp://www.metropolismag.com/ architecture/residential-architecture/dont-call-it-a-commune-inside-berlin-radical-cohousing-project/, Accessed April 14, 2018. Image 2.5.2: R50 Baugruppen collective balcony, ttp://www.metropolismag.com/ architecture/residential-architecture/dont-call-it-a-commune-inside-berlin-radical-co-

108

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa and Murray Silverstein. A pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Alexander, Christopher. The Timeless way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Bergdoll, Barry, and Peter Christensen. Home delivery: fabricating the modern dwelling. The Museum of Modern Art, 2008 Catalina Ionitas, Foam City (2015) https://pa.upc.edu/...catalina/.../CI_Foam%20city Griffin, Jo. The Lonely Society. The Mental Health Foundation. 2010. June 14, Kurfurstenstrase Building Group, Accessed March 8, 2018. http://june-14. com/2018/building-group-kurfurstenstrase/ Maak, Niklas. “Post-familial communes in Germany.” Harvard Design Magazine: architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and planning 41 (2015) Metropolis Magazine, “Don’t Call It A Commune: Inside Berlin’s Radical Cohousing Project”. Accessed April 14, 2018. http://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/residential-architecture/dont-call-it-a-commune-inside-berlin-radical-cohousing-project/ New London Architecture. New Ideas for Housing. NLA Insight Study, 2015 Otto, Rasch. Finding Form. Edition Axel Menges 1995 Phillips, Andrea and Fulya Erdemci. Actors, Agents and Attendants. 2010. Spyropoulos, Theodore, Adaptive Ecologies: Correlated Systems of Living. Architectural Association, 2013 Wright Steenson, Molly. Architectural Intelligence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT, 2017

109