CONTENTS ■ CHAPTER 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ■ CHAPTER 2 PROJECT METHODOLOGY
■ CHAPTER 6 STAKEHOLDERS&SHARED MODE ■ CHAPTER 7 SECTION MODEL
■ CHAPTER 3 SHARED SPACES IN CITY SCALE
■ CHAPTER 8 DETAIL MODEL
■ CHAPTER 4 PRECEDENTS&DESIGN STRATEGIES
■ CHAPTER 9 PHRASES OF SHARED COMMUNITY
■ CHAPTER 5 COMMUNITY SHARING ANALYSIS
■ CHAPTER 10 CRITICAL REFLECTION
■ CHAPTER
1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
1 GATHERING 2 WALKING 3 PHOTOGRAPHY 4 MAPPING 5 INTERVIEWING
analysis the reasons leading to situation of the site from history, culture,political and social perspectives define the accessibility in the area and observe the public space of its form and characters, to experience the historical urban block structure and its connection with surrounding area record buildings and places in an accurate and detailed way which is complementary to observations, measurements and conventional surveying analysis the existing usage of the physical places, social network and the social relationship getting know the context of their lives in their own words
â– CHAPTER
2
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
EXSTING FUNCTION AND SHARED SPACES ANALYSIS [AREA FUNCTION ]
[SHREAD SPACES ]
Office District Arts,Entertainment,Cutural District Residential District
Education District
Main street Mixed use District
Cultural District
Residential Residential District District Historical Landmark District Transportation District
Station
Cultural District Public entrance Roof parking Semi-public space
â– CHAPTER
3
SHARED SPACES IN CITY SCALE
Building texture Main high-level shared space Private shared space
MIXED SHARED FUNCTION IN IN SHARED SPACES EXISTING ISSUES
misused , abandoned places
EXISTING SHARING RESOURCES STREETS SQUARES PARKS
low-efficient community [ SHARED SPACES ] [ GREEN ][ NATURE ] [ GARDEN] [ SPORT ] [ LEISURE ] [ CULTURE ] [ TRANSPORTATION ] [ ACTIVITY ] [ ARTS ] [ KNOWLEDGE ] [ COMMERCIAL ]
[MAIN SHARED SPACES ] Based on the diffirent area function and the public spaces in city shapes the main shared spaces in the city scale.The shared spaces are shared by diverse uers,residents,visitors,students,office peoples,workers,temporory bussiness people and so on.In different time the shared spaces can be usded by diffirent people for various activities from moring to nignt,from work day to weekend.
mix user groups but lack of interactions
creative community social inclusion economic development
INFRASTURE INFORMATION CABS
KNOWLEDGE MEALS SPACE FURNITURE INTERESTS
POTENTIAL CONDITIONS
POTENTIAL SHARING RESOURCES
CASE STUDY
1
CASE STUDY
[ COHOUSING IS AN INNOTIVE STRATEGY ] cohousing community
live together; exchang, share community resources
3
[ SPACE SHARE PLATFORM IN TAIWAN ]
(20-30 families)
private homes; public facilities
public buildings outdoor spaces
Space-Demanders (need space)
develop diverse and creative ways for the public to interact, think, and share their ideas.
courtyards same concept of living and life goals
squares For example, one can rent a space with affordable price to an agency that serves healthy daily meals for the elderlies in a community.
Space-Providers (need profit) It attempts to form a new community with a friendly neighborhood, a strong sense of community, living environment and high quality standard.
CASE STUDY
2
opportunities for socialinteraction
[ DENMARK COMMUNITIY-JYSTRUP SAVVAEKET ] common space
â– CHAPTER
4
PRECEDENTS &DESIGN STRATEGIES
Ordinary families burden is difficult to take responsibility of these facilities.
music event poetry reading
residents participation
community resource sharing Residents have the oppor tunity to use more facilities, such as gardens, workshop, (photographic darkroom), manual occupancy (craf t room), lounge and restaurant.
common meals
Share the collective dining pleasure Save residents shopping and cooking time Shared a variety of skills and talents within neighborhood
participate in decisions about their housing appearance, size, building materials
encourage their creation to living environment
lend each other camping equipment, books, video tapes, lawn mowers, garden equipment, etc.
reduce the excessive consumption behavior and the number of shopping
CASE STUDY
4
DESIGN STRATEGIES
[ THE COMMON HOUSE IN LONDON ] MIXED USER GROUPS
a experiment (in London)
SHARING LIVING CODE
a resource that is organised and structured by collective activity as a community regular users
groups, projects or events that use the space ‘regularly’ (once a month or more)
SHARED RESOURCES +COLLECTIVE ACTIVITIES
occasional and one off events and meetings
have somewhere to meet
A NEW LIVING FORM
contribute financially e a s y t o a c c e s s a n d to the costs of running book and importantly
NEIGHBORHOOD
apply actual manual methods
FIELDTRIP EXAMINE IDEAS
VERSION ONE
PEOPLE'S DESIRE, DATA, PHOTOGRAPHS
specific comprehensive analysis research
INTERVIWIING, PARTICIPATE IN EVENTS, RECORD DAILY ACTIVITIES
MANAGE THE ACTIVITY LINES
COLLECT
LOW-IMPACT
inspired by reviews
VERSION TWO
ANALYSE
create every scenes WHAT COULD WE DO TO PROMOTE THE COMMUNITY?
visual design thinking
offer an incentive to address our methods ECONOMIC DEMAND
SOCIAL-INTERACTION DEMAND
FINAL REVIEW
VERSION THREE
AFFORDABLE
A SENSE OF COMMUNITY
developing further statics
RENT
A HIGHEFFECTIVE, DYNAMIC COMMUNITY
■ CHAPTER
5
People's view of Mehringplatz
COMMUNITY SHARING ANALYSIS
teenagers
SOCIAL MAPPING 1
low-income residents
POPULATION FLOW
QUARTIAERS MANAGEMENT
mothers with baby
the primary school learner
SOCIAL MAPPING 2 regular visitors
passers-by
POPULATION FLOW
QUARTIAERS MANAGEMENT
tourists
SOCIAL MAPPING 3
the "informal" street worker
POPULATION FLOW
QUARTIAERS MANAGEMENT
the ofďŹ ce worker There are a number of exisiting shared space in this area, and we have found that the interaction between low-income residents and regular visitors creats the potential for inhancing the comunity quality. workers other residents regular visitors low-income residents
the retailer
â– CHAPTER
6
STAKEHOLDERS&SHARED MODE
[ PRIVATE COMMUNITY ]
[RELATIVELY SHARED COMMUNITY ]
[ EXTEND SHARED SPACES ]
Shared Mode Friends garthering
Quartiersmanagement oragnize
Parents visiting
use the space they bought
Community communication Children caring
Low-income resident Low-income resident
Buy togther
common space
select
interior space Low-income resident pay the rent
ourdoor space rent from residents
Regular Visitor
Activities
Reading party Film party
stakeholder
Music party Painting Dancing party Low-income resident Regular Visitor
buy together
common spaces
rent spaces from low-income residents
regular activities
temporary use
Building Reforming
â– CHAPTER
7
SECTION MODEL [ PRIVATE COMMUNITY ]
[RELATIVELY SHARED COMMUNITY ]
[ EXTEND SHARED SPACES ]
Shared Mode Section Analysis
Section Analysis Friends garthering
Quartiersmanagement
SPACES OF SHARED COMMUNITY
oragnize
Community communication Children caring
Low-income resident Low-income resident
select
Private Balcony
Green roof PRIVATE COMMUNITY
Parents visiting
use the space they bought
SPACES OF SHARED COMMUNITY
Private Room
Shared Corridor
Public Room
Public Balcony
Low-income resident
common space interior space
Shared Room
ourdoor space
pay the rent
CIRCULATION
Buy togther
Private Balcony Green roof PRIVATE COMMUNITY
rent from residents CIRCULATION
Regular Visitor
Activities
Reading party Film party
stakeholder
Music party Painting Dancing party Residents Shared Visitors Low-income Public
resident
Regular Visitor
buy together
Residents
common spaces
rent spaces from low-income residents
regular activities
temporary use
Shared Visitors Public
Private Room
Shared Corridor
Public Room
Public Balcony
Shared Room
■ CHAPTER
8
DETAIL MODEL
DETAIL MODEL A
DETAIL MODEL B
DETAIL MODEL C
■ CHAPTER
9
PHRASES OF SHARED COMMUNITY PROCESS OF 10 YEARS
1.SHARED CITY SCALE
VIEWING DECK PLANT MARKET PLAYGROUND COMMUNITY CENTER
PARKING
SQUARE
JEWISH MUSEUM
GREEN
LANDSCAPE
RIVERSIDE
- POTENTIAL AREA
PROMOTING AREAS
LESS SHARING AREA
ADDING BUILDINGS
MORE SHARING AREA
- STRATEGIES
- ACHIEVEMENT IN 10 YEARS
2 .SHARED COMMUNITY
This project choose the outer ring of the Mehringplatz giving the strategy of shared residential building for low-income residential to rent their houses to regular visitor. This project specific gives the trategy to the community building, creating a sharing places of one horizon floor and two vertical units.
ACHIEVEMENT IN 2 YEARS INFLUENCE AREA OF 5 YEARS INFLUENCE AREA OF 10 YEARS
■ CHAPTER
10
CRITICAL REFLECTION As our project 2 is looking at how modernist housing estates could be appropriated for the city Berlin and how people living within the neighborhood Mehringplatz can exert their agency to re-image and transform their place of living. It is a particular experience for us to produce ideas in Berlin by field trip. Through the Berlin exploration, we examine our ideas that comes out before departure, that is how to make a more high-efficient community. During the site survey, it is worth mentioning that I was not only rethinking how to apply situating, gathering, mapping and surveying that we have learned several times before, but also I realized that it is of value to involve specific analysis and comprehensive research in different scales: city scale and neighborhood scale, but this time when I using mapping as a tool to analyze the data, I found it is a bit hard to do social mapping and distinguish them in city and neighborhood scale. As usual, the group work is the major part through the project process, I developed my strengths on interviewing people and really impressed by their sense of belonging in the area and the desire for interaction with different groups in the neighborhood, at that time, I seemed to realize an urban designer can develop talents to improve the current situation more than to create. Besides, in order to learn the inner life , I chose one view of high population concentration and used digital camera to record what was the relation between the space and human activities within three different times 11am, 4pm, 8pm. However, the weakness is that it is lack of certain consideration on how to relate the data collected into my design strategy in some cases. In this session, our group work really went well, I remembered that there was an event at Friday, which is a good opportunity for interviewing and questionnaires , our group members are all passionate about exchanging opinions with participants, and as the time limited and people were rush to leave, our efficient work distribution helped us collect the weekly existing and potential activities for interactions. Also, our finishing data and materials on time assist our work after field trip. Emerging technologies of the twenty-first century are drastically changing the way designs are produced, and adjusting the very processes of common architectural practice. During this project, I was taught to learn how to use laser cuts and how to address the methods of designing through the engagement of such a visual design thinking. As a planning student, I had less experience on making models especially to express the proposition before but this time group members helped me a lot about the architectural background as well as the materials selection and actual manual methods. Maybe the limited time for making model and doing mapping analysis well for weekly task is the major problem for us, but as for me, I found it is more challenging to articulate my proposal from different contexts-socially, functionally and physically as well as developing further statics when making a model. In the first-time review, I knew my weakness is focus on too much things in one model and did not address the main issues and proposals well, but I was good at mapping the human activities of different groups, and if next time, I will manage the activity lines more clearly, classify and define the users more accurate. During the version 2, our unwise decision is to reform our model again and again and this is surely waste some time which resulted in incomplete thinking and organization on our strategies and designed shared community operating model. In the next project, I should overcome the shortcoming of the lack of in-depth knowledge and analysis on very specific issue. Also, it should be noted that using making models as a conceptualization is different from digital modeling as we are used to apply in projects, which means, we are supposed to define our aim and offer an incentive to address our methods of designing early. To be honest, though it is a hard work, I really appreciate the modeling process, during which I could feel like every architectural objects as every life comes out through our effort, I was able to experience the fabrication of architecture. I have learned that it is an efficient way to study different spaces, functions, uses and activities and explore the potential re-appropriation for underused spaces. In the second review, I have been inspired from other groups as well, the means of expression for models can be various and creative regarding to the stakeholders and involved agencies, our group members all attempted to find the most appropriate way for defining our shared community strategy, that is to compare three different sections and through different elements I could feel that every scene we create is full of dynamic and provide a potential for social-interaction in actual. As for version 3, our group members were all developing their advantages, one was taking responsibility of cutting laser, one was critically analyzing and mapping, one is gluing, making collage and this make the process more efficient. During the final review, I found my weakness of telling my design story in a narrative way but it should be noted that I have learned presentation skills and how to combine created scenes with designed model better for a clear and visual exhibition. Throughout the whole project, I experienced using almost all methods and tools, group works, individual skills developing and learned new modeling skills as a visual approach for design process as well as studying how to make a coherent exhibition contribution. Hence, there are too much for me as an urban designer to learn from, from social, cultural or political contexts. I am appreciate that though not good at but I really made a progress in logical thinking the design process and try to make the architectural story more narrative in the future.
REFERENCES
Jager, Markus, Jörg Haspel, and Annemarie Jaeggi, Housing Estates In The Berlin Modern Style (München: Deutscher Kunstverlag Gmbh, 2007) Griffith, James S, A Shared Space (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1995) Herzog, Lawrence A, Shared Space (La Jolla, Calif.: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego, 2000) Boştenaru Dan, Maria, Vernacular And Modernist Housing In Germany And Romania (Göttingen: Cuvillier, 2010) Rave, Rolf, Modern Architecture In Berlin (Stuttgart: Edition Axel Menges, 2009) Nagel, Wolfgang, and Justus Burtin, Projekt Mehringplatz (Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Bau- und Wohnungswesen, IC, 1994)