Re imagining the minimum dwelling by urbanworkshop

Re-imagining the ‘Minimum Dwelling’ By Solachi Ramanathan

I 04 April 2014

Abstract ‘The collective lifestyle is changing as a result of the economic prosperity, shortage of urban space, the general need for mobility, the firmly entrenched individualism and phenomena such as working from home and flexible working.’ (Kloos and Wendt, 2006:summary) There is a need to rethink urban housing strategies, as good quality living environments are essential for cities to attract and retain young professionals. Teige’s theories about the ‘minimum dwelling’ serve as a springboard for a discourse on the evolution of dwelling types to suit the needs of todays working professional. While collective living serves as a compelling format of dwelling for professionals, especially those who live alone or away from their family, how can we design a more innovative and sustainable form of collective housing than established forms like hotels and hostels? What are the challenges in implementing these forms of housing? Keywords: Minimum Dwelling, collective living, second home, professionals housing, changing

lifestyles, new housing strategies

Table of Contents Introduction02

Format of the Minimum Dwelling02

Individuality and Private space04

Articulating Collective Life05

An Effective Collective Housing Solution08

Conclusion-An Alternative Type 10

Reference List12

INTRODUCTION

The point of origin of my research was the growing phenomenon of ‘the second home’. The idea of a second home usually evokes an image of a suburban home where city dwellers can escape city life to relax surrounded by the beauty of nature. In cities like London, the term second home is often associated with investments in residential property by affluent foreign individuals. The idea of the second home in this paper has to do neither with leisure nor with expensive real-estate and everything to do with an evolution in formats of living and working. As there is a tendency to retain an anchor in the ‘home city’ and live in a more temporary dwelling in the ‘work city’, especially in the case of commuter marriages1, the second home should possess the qualities of a temporary home. Location in central areas is key, in order to be connected to work, good public transportation and cultural activities. Housing becomes strategic in increasing productivity and embedding the newcomers into the host society. The ‘Minimum Dwelling’ as described by Teige was driven by socialist ambitions of eliminating poverty through good quality affordable housing for the working class. It is a form of collective housing where all economic functions (kitchen, servants room, laundry) and social functions (living room, study, library, recreational facilities) of the dwelling are collectivized. This allows for the individual dwelling cubicle to be reproduced in larger numbers integrated with collective spaces of high quality. Collectivization of services liberates the individual from housework, freeing more time for economic and cultural work. It represents a model of efficiency in organizing and managing all common household services and represents a household organization as an up to date smoothly operating mechanized modern factory assembly line (Teige, 1932). Some of the logic of the minimum dwelling from the 1930’s returns, however I argue that through the evolution of the dwelling type it should support a more dynamic collective environment while preserving the integrity of private spaces. Simultaneously the private space should be expanded to be more than just a bedroom. While this presents an ideal collective living environment for working professional, it is important to note the role of institutions capable of providing such housing. Established forms of collective housing like youth hostels, workers housing are developed and managed by institutions like housing associations and corporative. There is a need to expand the capacity of these housing associations to provide good quality affordable housing for professionals in the city. FORMAT OF THE ‘MINIMUM DWELLING’ In the minimum dwelling, the ‘collective housing model’ was presented as an ideal dwelling type for a lifestyle of subsistence minimum. Teige’s visions however were associated with high density housing based on serialization of the individual cell and a rigid collectivization of activities. The collective realm was entirely centralized and rarely treated as differentiated environments. The collective house for workers (fig 2) embodies many of Teige’s theories of the proletarian dwelling. I return to the scheme of collective living (fig1) proposed by Teige as the question rather than the answer to the format of collective living for working professionals today. In order to investigate different ways of evolving the type, I turn to some case studies that exemplify the design of a dynamic and convivial collective realm on the one hand, and richer individual life on the other. DOMESTICITY

Fig 1:Scheme of Collectivist reconstruction of dwelling The centralization and collectivization of economic, cultural, and social factors of dwelling process

Fig 2:Collective house for workers by M.J.Ginsburg & F.Milinisn(1929)- An example of collective housing from the ‘Minimum Dwelling’. The short wing of the complex houses a children’s home, dining room, kitchen, and laundry. Apartments are two stories high. Corridor on every second floor. Terrace garden. On the ground floor are rooms for rest and recreation.

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION

INDIVIDUALITY & PRIVATE SPACE The Chelsea Hotel (fig3) presents a compelling case for the design of private spaces that are more than just a bedroom. The Chelsea Hotel in NewYork is a co-operative housing model that hosts an interesting mix of temporary hotel guests and permanent residents. As a cooperative housing model, the apartment hotel presents a feasible model for providing generous spaces to live and work in a central city location by introducing commercial functions and reinvesting the returns. Here, the private dwelling units are designed as a grouping of continuous rooms, most commonly used as a bedroom connected to a work studio creating a spontaneous live-work environment. The private dwelling/working spaces are complemented with a collective dining room and services. This additionally made it a good place to work, as they did not have to worry about mundane domestic chores. The Chelsea hotel was created as an attractive collective housing model for artists, writers and other creative individuals. However, as patterns of work are changing, resembling more the style of working as artists and writers, where boundaries between domestic and work life are blurred, the Chelsea housing type could be a successful model for working professionals as well.

Fig 3:Chelsea Hotel typical floor plan, Newyork

The private spaces in the Chelsea Hotel are not constrained. Rather than being reduced to a technical assembly of the basic architectural components, it is a space of ultimate retreat away from collective life and towards the realization of the individual. The proportions of rooms, with high ceiling and tall windows (image 1) improve the quality of light and have a dramatic effect on space. However the serialization of private dwelling units on either side of a corridor takes priority over a differentiated collective environment making it limited in its success.

DOMESTICITY

Image 1:Inside a room in the Chelsea Hotel, Newyork

ARTICULATING COLLECTIVE LIFE The forms of collective housing most commonly found today in cities include hotels and hostels. However they both represent unfeasible options for working professionals. Hotels can become an expensive over a longer period of time, with all services provided at a premium, while hostels tend to compromise on quality of space in favour of efficiency. The ‘minimum dwelling’ is an adaptation of the hotel type lifestyle without the frills of a hotel. In its elementary form, the individual unit consists of a single/multiple rooms, a bathroom, a pantry but no kitchen or other facilities. Other facilities like kitchen, laundry, maintenance and recreational facilities are centralized. In reimagining the minimum dwelling two components deserve attention- the private space, referred to as cell, and the collective realm. The differentiation in centralization and collectivization of spaces is important to accommodate different lifestyles of individuals. The Inverted courtyard house by Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons(fig 4) exemplifies the design of a collective realm that supports a convivial environment for social life between individuals who don’t necessarily know eachother. It is designed for 4 individuals to live together. The collective spaces are layered in both directions to create multiple grouping of collective life without physical separations-The kitchen, dining table and living rooms form a continuous space, or the living and outdoor decks on either side or the outdoor deck and open to sky spaces. Here the kitchen and living occupy a privileged space that anchors the collective activities. In the minimum dwelling, Teige advocates the removal of the kitchen from the individual dwelling unit in order to emancipate the woman from mundane domestic chores. He felt the potential of the woman as an important earning member was being undermined by having to perform domestic duties. As we move away from the feminist debate over the kitchen towards an urban community that enjoys the social and cultural benefits of cooking, I argue

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION

that the kitchen should be reintroduced into the housing type, to become the collective nerve centre for the private domestic spaces. In some models where the kitchen does exist, it is often in the form of a downsized pantry unit. The minimal pantry undermines the potential of the kitchen both as a space for intimate contemplative life that cooking offers and for new forms of community life. By combining the pantries to be shared by 2/4 cells, we can create generous sized kitchens that preserve the integrity of the domestic activity while enhancing its social and cultural nature. It is not to overlook that the kitchen is a space with a lot of clutter and needs to be treated differently from other social spaces. In the Inverted courtyard house, the L shaped layout of the kitchen enables micro-environments providing more visible and less visible parts. The presentable part of the kitchen becomes the node of collective activity. An alternative organization could be the layering of the kitchen in section. By introducing a half level difference between the kitchen and other collective spaces, one cannot see the clutter in the kitchen whilst supporting collective activity around the kitchen. The casestudy house however fails to effectively integrate the private spaces with the collective realm by placing them at the end of two corridors. At the same time the collective spaces are also limited in providing one type of collective life based on openness and conviviality. The lack of differentiation indicates that this house is more suitable for friends or as a weekend home.

Fig 4:Inverted Courtyard House by A.Quincy Jones and Fredrick E. Emmons. Central kitchen and layering of collective spaces in both directions.

‘People cannot be forced to live in groups, but only voluntarily, when people are brought together who share common values in work and culture and who are bound to each other in true friendship and bonds of personal intimacy. Such a community will become a true home DOMESTICITY

for its inhabitants, rather than just being a place to lodge.’ (Teige, 2002:379) Teige proposes that these bonds can be achieved through the cultural spaces like a library, space for physical exercise and a childrens’ home. However, the collectivization and centralization of these spaces, in the ground floor or in a separate block for example, leaves the individual cells with dis-engaged collective spaces. In order to create a rich collective environment with multiple options for collective life, differentiation and layering of spaces becomes a useful tool. The Share House designed by Naruse Inokuma Architects (fig5) creates a dynamic collective environment that can truly be the heart of the dwelling. The design employs a layering of collective space in section to create multiple associations between the collective and private realm. The larger social spaces are on the ground floor like the kitchen, dining and formal living. On the second level there is a more informal living space, which forms part of the structure of movement. As you go higher, a terrace in the corner occupies a more privileged space, which is not directly in the line of movement yet can be accessed by all. There is a differentiation and hierarchy of collective spaces, with more collective and centralized spaces on the ground floor to the more privileged in the corner on upper floor.

Fig 5:Share House,Nagoya, Japan by Naruse Inokuma Architects. Layering of collective spaces in section to create diversity of collective life

Structure and mobility through the private and collective spaces are important characteristics in determining the quality of individual and collective life. The Share House provides a dynamic living environment; using vertical circulation and level differences effectively to segregate private spaces yet easily integrate them into the larger collective realm. The circulation space does not exist simply to connect individual rooms, rather becomes part of the inhabited spaces with varying qualities. The informal gathering space on the first floor is a space that encourages maximum contact as it is directly in the line of movement. While domesticity and retirement in this space is unattainable, it is a convivial environment facilitating accidental encounters. The terrace in the corner on the other hand is separated from the main line of circulation to provide a more privileged and intimate collective space.

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION

Image 2 :Share House,Nagoya, Japan by Naruse Inokuma Architects. Collective space part of the movement structure

The plan organization (image 2) is divided into a network of thoroughfare rooms and terminal rooms. Rooms that are a part of the movement structure become the backbone of the plan and form the more convivial and informal part of the collective realm. The terminal rooms on the other hand form part of the private or individualized spaces. It is their coexistence that creates a rich environment for collective living. In this light, the role of the corridor distinguishing route and destination that pervades domestic planning is not ideal. A compartmentalized building makes it difficult to enter any room where you have no specific business. ‘These thoroughfares are able to draw distant rooms closer, but only by disengaging those near at hand. . In facilitating communication, the corridor reduces contact. What this means is that purposeful or necessary communication was facilitated while incidental communication was reduced.’ (Evans79) AN EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE HOUSING SOLUTION What is needed is a combination of all 3 case studies to create an effective collective living environment. The ‘Mehr Als Vohen’ by Duplex Architects (fig 6) in Zurich comes close to applying the principles extracted from the 3 casestudies. The Mehr Als Vohen is a collective housing project in Zurich developed and managed by housing corporatives that are committed to developing pioneering housing projects for the future. The project consists of family housing, old-age institutions, union settlements, single and shared apartments complemented by a reception with common services (services based on a neighborhood), a guest house, a restaurant, a public transport station. The housing block for individuals has a unique layout that supports collective living.

DOMESTICITY

The grouping of individual spaces around collective spaces provides richer forms of both individual and collective life. Unlike family housing, housing designed for individuals who don’t necessarily know each other to live together needs different rules for differentiating private spaces. Since the established family structure is broken, it would not have one larger or master bedroom for parents and a number of smaller rooms for children. Alternatively it could be based on the duration of stay where short-term residents require smaller rooms and long-term residents require larger rooms. At the same time, there needs to be a greater variety of combinations to accommodate a variation in social structures as opposed to the established family structure of two parents and 2-4 children. Rather than a serialized configuration of individual dwelling spaces, they are oriented in multiple directions with the collective spaces. The organization of collective spaces works on the one hand almost like an extension of the private space while at the same time forming part of a larger collective realm through layering in both directions (image 3). The division of collective spaces is also possible to accommodate individualized lifestyles or temporary individual needs for example to entertain in private. The layering of private and collective space is more 2 dimensional. The private spaces occupy the periphery of the large floor plate to enjoy maximum amount of daylight and ventilation. The collective spaces are distributed between the central and outer part of the large floor plate. Even though some of the spaces like the kitchen are deep into the floor plan, it is not necessarily dark, as it is lit from more than one direction.

Fig 6:Mehr Als Wohen, Zurich,Switzerland by Duplex Architekten

The individual space is not constrained, and the private space for each individual is more than just a room or cell. They are a unit of 3-4 rooms to include a bedroom and an additional room that can be used as a lving/study. Layering of space within the private realm is

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION

important in creating differentiated environments that support localization of private activity. The individual units are isolated for privacy yet integrated by changing te orientation of private rooms towards micro-collective spaces.

Image 3:Mehr Als Wohen, Zurich,Switzerland by Duplex Architekten Layering of private and collective space

In exploring the vertical dimension of this multi residential unit, there is a lack of differentiation of the collective spaces. The units are simply stacked by repeating the same configuration of private and collective spaces on each floor. Alternatively a different possibility that uses the qualities of the proximity to the ground plane (low/medium/high) can create differentiated collective spaces. For example the more individualized or intimate collective spaces like a reading room or an exercise room can occupy a privileged space on the terrace while the ground floor and the basement can contain activities that are more collective and require a greater interface with the street. The retail and events area in the lower floors can occupy a strategic location to easily plug into the wider urban realm. CONCLUSION – AN ALTERNATIVE TYPE While contact and communication is important in facilitating bonds between unfamiliar individuals, not bound by familial ties, the dwelling unit should enable a range of individual and collective life. Articulating these variations becomes the central focus for designing a collective dwelling for ‘only by enriching the life of the individual will it be possible to enrich the life of the collective and vice versa’ (Teige, 2012:379). New bonds forged around the ‘collective’ can go a long way in integrating individuals into a new society. The minimum dwelling as presented by Teige serves as a good starting point to develop a dwelling type for professionals, especially migrants. The hotel type lifestyle of collectivization of economic, cultural and recreational functions with multiple tenureship options presents a feasible model for a second home in unfamiliar environments. It presents a model of efficiency and has the potential of increasing the productivity of the individual by eliminating mundane housekeeping chores. Using the principles of collective living extracted from the various case studies, I attempt to modify the ‘minimum dwelling’ to create a more sustainable form of collective living for DOMESTICITY

working professionals. The adaptation involves introducing a kitchen for every 4 individual rooms and adding extensions to the kitchen to create additional layering of space within the collective realm. The linear circulation corridor is replaced with multiple staircase cores and a network of collective spaces forming the backbone of the spatial organization. Introducing more variation (of collective and private realm) while maintaining regularity is key to bringing together varied lifestyles and interests of individuals.

Fig 7: Reinterpreting Collective house for workers Introducing a diverse yet regulated system of collective space structuring the movement

Fig 8: Variation of modules 4 rooms share a common kitchen + a studio apartment. Extending the collective space as a thoroughfare room.

Collective housing in this form is rarely recognized as a type of housing provision in cities. One may encounter practical difficulties while obtaining planning permission for such housing forms as it neither complies entirely to hotel standards nor housing standards. In London for example, the individual spaces may not comply with the space standards/ minimum habitable structure definition in London for a traditional home which ranges from 1 room 2 persons of 50 sqm to a maximum of 4 bedroom 6 persons of 99 sqm. A more nuanced housing strategy is necessary to account for the new housing types that include non-family housing types within the city. At the same time, design should ensure the flexibility of the housing type to be mixed with family type housing and accommodate change in tenureship for a more sustainable solution as seen in the case of Mehr Als Wohen project.

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION

Notes 1Commuter Marriages- Due to increased mobility and improvements in communication and technology, commuter marriages are becoming increasingly common. It is a marriage between spouses who live apart, usually because of the locations of their jobs, and who regularly travel to be together, as on weekends. As a result they tend to belong to the dual home ownership category. Bibliography Abalos, Inaki (2001) The Good Life:A guided visit to the houses of modernity

Kloos, Maarten, Wendt Dave (2006) Formats for Living, Amsterdam, Arcam Press Vestbro, Dick Urban (2010) Saving by Sharing - Collective Housing for Sustainable Lifestyles Reference List Evans, Robin (1978) Figures Doors & Passages cited in Translations from drawing to Building and Other Essays

Hayden, Dolores (1982) The Grand Domestic Revolution- A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities, MIT Press, Edition 1 Kloos M and Wendt D (2006) Formats for Living: Contemporary Floor Plans in Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Architectura & Natura Press; 1 edition (July 2000) Teige, Karel (2002) The Minimum Dwelling, Edition 1 1932, Massachusetts, London, MIT Press Reference List (webpage) Brambila, Nicole C. (updated 20/02/2012) Together apart: Commuter marriages on the rise http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/story/2012-02-20/Together-apart-Commutermarriages-on-the-rise/53170648/1 webpage, Jan 2014

Neuman, William (2006) One Family Two Jobs and Homes in Separate Cities, Newyork Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/realestate/07relo.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1& webpage, Jan 2014 Pauline, Rfindependence (updated on 02/2013) What made me decide to live in a hotel full time? http://reachfinancialindependence.com/live-hotel-full-time/ , webpage, Feb 2014 Boeri Stefano ( ) Cohabiting in the Urban Encampment London Housing Design Guide (2011) https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housingland/publications/london-housing-design-guide Reference List (projects) Chelsea Hotel (1884) Fourier Charles,2009, Key to the Mystery of the Chelsea Hotel ? http://www.charlesfourier.fr/spip.php?article707 Inverted Courtyard House (unbuilt) A Quincy Jones and Frederick E.Emmons cited in Smith, Elizabeth A.T., Case Study Houses, 2007, Germany, Taschen Mehr als wohne (2014) Duplex Architects, Nagoya zürich http://duplex-architekten.ch Share House /“LT Josai” (2013) Naruse Inokuma Architects, Japan http://www.dezeen.com/2013/08/29/share-house-by-naruse-inokuma-architects/ Illustration Credits Fig 1 p3 Teige Karel Fig 2 p3 M.J.Ginsburg & F.Milinisn, Teige Karel Fig 3 p4 Collection Cornelia Santomenna, Solachi Ramanathan Fig 4 p6 Arts and Architecture Magazine via Modernica Blog Fig 5 p7 Alyn Griffiths via Dezeen Fig 6 p9 Duplex Architekten via Competition online Fig 7 p11 Solachi Ramanathan DOMESTICITY

Fig 8 p11 Solachi Ramanathan Image 1 p5 Victoria Cohen Image 2 p8 Alyn Griffiths via Dezeen Image 3 p10 Duplex Architekten

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION