FAMILY MATTERS Johan van den Boom | Final presentation Essay | Logbook

Hele tekst

(1)

FAMILY MATTERS

Johan van den Boom | Final presentation

Essay | Logbook

(2)

INTRODUCTION

In the changing city landscape one of the most important demands to be met is the increasing desire of families to keep living in the city. Previously whenever they had children families would move out to the suburbs, but the city is becoming more and more attractive. It is the place where things happen and where all your friends live.

However the city may not necessarily provide for the changing needs of families.

The most common typology for families is the terraced house. This typology has qualities such as providing storage space and a garden. There are several reasons though why it is not efficient anymore to keep building terraced houses. These take up a lot of space and therefore don’t contribute to the densification of cities.

It is also expensive to build them, so terraced housing would only be accessible to higher income groups.

New forms of housing must be designed to create space for an increasing amount of families to live in cities. SPARK is an answer to this question. It is a housing complex for approximately 100 family households where minimal space is owned and space is shared with other families. The benefit of sharing space is that this creates the extra space needed for family life.

required that there’s catered for a healthy social environment which will enrich city life.

LIVING IN SPARK

A typical housing unit in SPARK is 80m2 and consists of only the basic functions; a bathroom, toilet, pantry, storage room and two small bedrooms. These are primary functions. All secondary functions such as a living room and a kitchen are shared with other residents. A study of the reference project: ‘Mehr als Wohnen’ by Duplex Architects in Zurich, has proven that it is possible to live this way. In ‘Mehr als Wohnen’, a typical apartment is 45 m2 and four apartments share one living room and one kitchen.

Interviews with 15 different families showed that these families all have a similar routine in common when it comes to time management. Due to the schedule of their children and their own work, they are more attached to a ‘9 to 5’ mentality, meaning that during the day lots of space inside SPARK is vacant. Therefore these spaces can have double functions. A kitchen can be a place to work during the day or a children’s playroom can be a living room for parents at night.

These interviews also revealed the desire for very large hallways. It’s a great space

for children to play indoors and can also be used as a storage room for the families.

(3)

The benefit of sharing a living space with other families is that you can also share/

reuse all sorts of stuff such as books, baby clothes or toys.

THE ENSEMBLY OF SPARK

SPARK is located on the old VDMA terrain in Eindhoven. The existing ensemble consists of three buildings: the ‘VDMA-garage’, the ‘Lucifer fabriek’ and the

‘Zusterflat’. The additional value of this ensemble is that the compositions of the three buildings form an inner world which offers a safe family environment.

The ‘Sargfabrik’ in Vienna by BKK-3 Architecture is a reference project of similar size also designed as an inner world inside a city block, housing approximately 300 families.

The face of the ensemble is the ‘Zusterflat’. This building was built in 1958 after the original building was destroyed during war. At the time the building was built to house nurses and also contained a car showroom in the plinth which was owned by

‘van der Meulen-Ansems’, just like the rest of the ensemble. The building stands on two legs, forming a gate to the complex. The ‘Zusterflat’ together with the ‘Lucifer fabriek’ and ‘VDMA-garage’ are situated around an inner courtyard.

The ‘Luciferfabriek’ built in 1890 was transformed by ‘van der Meulen-Ansems’ in 1921 into an assembly line for the production of cars. Its monumental quality lies in the shell that is wrapped around an iron construction giving the building its spatial quality and can easily be used as a half-climate.

The VDMA-garage was built in 1929. This build does not have a lot of potential for transformation. It’s a flat box taking up a lot of space and as a result hinders densification of the area. Therefore the decision was made to demolish the VDMA- garage and build a new building.

This new building is designed as a 3-dimensional grid that connects to the ‘Lucifer fabriek’ and the ‘Zusterflat’ by an interior route. This way the ensemble is not three separate buildings but one building housing several neighbourhoods.

THE PROGRAM OF SPARK

The benefit of living in SPARK is to have access to all sorts of extra facilities. As stated before, the residents will share the kitchen and living room. The complex also facilitates a restaurant, a kindergarten, a design and technology lab and joker dwellings.

The restaurant is ‘one menu for all’. The busy schedules of parents often make it impossible to cook a decent meal. In the restaurant you can eat a decent meal for a good price. The restaurant also allows diners from outside of SPARK stimulating a balanced interaction between people.

The kindergarten makes the lives of Spark’s residents much easier. It’s a place where they can drop off their children before work without having to all across town. Children love it because they can play with the children from in- and outside the complex.

There is a design and technology lab in the SPARK complex. Design and technology are the primary functions that put Eindhoven on the map. Through collaboration with the Technical University and the Design Academy Eindhoven, programs can be run reflecting the innovating city that Eindhoven is. Think of expeditions, technological experiments, interactive workshops to create a live and learn environment for residents and the city.

ESSAY

(4)

environment in the city. They take extra care of their direct environment

considering they have children to bring up. The children are also little connecters amongst people as children do not differentiate on ground of culture or

background.

On spatial level SPARK breaks the hard boundary between city centre and the neighbourhood. SPARK functions as a soft gradation between city life and a world made for housing. Because SPARK is designed as an intra-world in the city, it can easily be encapsulated when Eindhoven expands and still function perfectly.

And finally, on the level of sustainability SPARK adds water square to the city. It has become evident that rainfall is increasing on an almost monthly basis and that cities are having a hard time dealing with all this excess water. The basement of the ‘Zusterflat’ is used to store giant water tanks that collect rainwater. This water can be used for flushing toilets and will save 50% of washing machines’ water usage. The water square makes the dynamic of water visible; it both adds to the level of experience and stimulates awareness.

social interaction in liveable housing forms.

In 1971 the cooperation ‘Centraal Wonen’ was set up. Its goal was to realise housing projects where different sized households were brought together in communities so that facilities could be shared. For example day care, creating the possibility for women to have their hands free and take part in society.

Keeping in mind the point of departure of structuralism, its ideas are quite relevant again today. It is founded on densification, social cohesion, participation or adaptability and flexibility of the housing market. Personally, I believe it is the building form of structuralism that is outdated. The scale of a building form doesn’t necessarily need to be made of small entities and may not even have to be linked to the human scale. It should be adaptable for people to make it their own in order to live in it.

Therefore the references used for SPARK are projects in Germany, Switzerland

and Austria. Our Eastern neighbours are one step ahead in realizing community-

based housing projects. In these countries, tenants function as co-financiers of

cooperation and the cooperation is the owner of a plot. Instead of buying a house,

you buy a share of the plot. This way the cooperations manage to keep the prices

low and tenants are fully in control of how they want to live. Together with an

architect they can design a building or complex that fulfils their needs and houses

everyday life functions.

(5)

LITERATURE LIST

Fujimoto, S. (2008). Sou Fujimoto: Primitive Future. Tokyo. LIXIL Publishing

Van Klingeren, F. (2003). Hinder en ontklontering, Architectuur en maatschappij in het werk van Frank van Klingeren. Rotterdam. Uitgeverij 010

A+T Research group. (2015). Why density? Debunking the myth of the cubic watermelon. Vitoria-Gasteiz. A+T architecture publishers

Woonlab (2017). Eengezinsappartement: een gesprek tussen stadmakers. Gestapeld wonen voor gezinnen in de stad? Rotterdam. Veenman+

Prof. Schroeder, U. (1979). Variabel nutzbare Häuser und Wohnungen. Berlin.

Bauverlag GmbH

Van der Pennen, T. (2016). Bouwstenen uit de recente geschiedenis van de stedelijke ontwikkeling. Amsterdam. IOS Press BV

Philips, D. Yamashita, Megumi. (2012). Detail in contemporary concrete architecture.

London. Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

El qroquis. (2012). RCR Arquitectes, poetic abstraction. Madrid. El Escorial

Camp, P. (2017). Wonen in de 21ste eeuw. Naar een hedendaags utopia. Den Haag.

Acco Nederland

Unicef. Interactive map of urbanization. Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.

nl/nieuws/2012/02/28/in-2050-woont-70-procent-van-de-mensen-in-de- stad-a1447273

VPRO. Tegenlicht, City for sale. Retrieved from: https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/

tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/2017-2018/city-for-sale.html

Planbureau voor de leefomgeving. PBL. Regionale bevolkingsgroei. Retrieved from:

http://www.pbl.nl/themasites/regionale-bevolkingsprognose

Centraal bureau voor de statestiek. CBS. Veel jonge gezinnen verlaten de stad.

Retrieved from: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2017/45/veel-jonge-gezinnen- verlaten-de-grote-stad

ESSAY

(6)
(7)

RESEARCH

Starting position for the project :

People demonstrating that social housing

is dissapering in the city of Amsterdam

because housing is getting to expansive.

(8)

Family Matters Final presentation Logbook

Johan van den Boom | Fontys MA+U | Graduation studio | 08.12.2017 | Presentation 2 | Project specs

ma di wo do vr za zo di wo do vr za zo

ma di wo do vr za zo ma di wo do vr za zo

ma di wo do vr za zo ma di wo do vr za

zo at home

at work work at home leicure/sports

study room can easily be one space that transforms its function thru out the day.

On a bigger scale a central space can function as a café, workplace, low-cost kitchen accessible for families or be used for certain events for residents and surrounding citizens.

Theory

Living together with families and sharing things is living in a collective way. This demands for a certain attention while designing spaces. For example; if everything is designed as one big space people don’t feel connected and the space probably ends up being empty thru out the day. If you design a space which is limited for one function only people interested in that specific function use the space. There is also the danger that people put claim on a certain space by performing a particular activity. This creates the fact that other people are excluded from using that space

Therefor one of my research questions is:

What size of space can you share and with how many families can you share it?

The concept I want to use to design these spaces with a certain nuance is the concept of gradations of Sou Fujimoto:

‘Gradations will become the keyword for the future of architecture. For instance, there are infinite colorific degrees between white and black, and innumerable values between 1 and 0. Conventional architecture systematizes our world in the name of ‘functionalism’, as of clearly differentiated into black and white. However, our contemporary lives are sustained by myriads of unpredictable actions that lie between them.’5 livingstreet/square

royal entry collective playroom

pantry

solidarity peace/privacy

central meeting space

parking car sharing/parking extra room

laundry

action radius

connectivity

scale safe neighborhood

Contextual

school uses a bit of the park but placed a fence around it so my idea was to lift the building up and let the park go underneath it. Below the park can continue and on top housing for families can be build.

The houses are designed as little pixels. By shifting them forth and back niches are created than can be used as collectively shared gardens. Hereby circulation space and collective space merge into each other and creates gradations between public and private.

Analyzing the research, I can conclude I’ve been using elements that can be found in Structuralism, which is an architecture period in the 70’s. I use these elements to scale down and to create gradations between public and private. The question is can these elements be used maximum to create a project for family housing?

Research by design 2

The second part of research by design that I did was by analyzing the private space with the shared space.

I drew them as a coalition between solid-space and void-space. The idea is that the void is the space that is accessible to anyone and that you can share.

In the first study the plan is drawn as a radial plan. The entrees are shared by two households. They can make use of the extended hallway to use it for their baby car, washing machine, bicycle etc. The housing units are connected to a central room. During the day this room can be used as a playroom for kids and at night as a shared living room. In the middle is a dividing furniture peace that is able to divide the room in two or four and then is able to use as multiple guestroom. From this central space, four other spaces are connected that are free for the residents to use them however they want.

One could be an office to work from home while the other can be used as a little gym.

The reference shows a way to connect the apartments with the central space in a playful way.

The second study is sort of similar. Here the units are placed around a central square. The difference is that from each unit, one room is taken away and used as a shared room. In this case the room can be shared again for a study, playroom or extra guestroom. For example, it would be silly to have a gym inside each housing unit, but to share one gym with four families is quit realistic.

The third study is in the form of shared hallway’s. by taking away the space of a unit, and giving it back as shared space once again this space can be filled in however the residents would like.

The next step I did is try to use these plans to make them into 3d models. The outcome is quite limited cause it results in stacking units. I tried to play with other compositions and think about how to create void spaces that can be used as shared collective space. Then I made a conceptual model of voids and solids. This is more interesting because the voids become 3 dimensional.

Still the solids are quit limited as private space so I made one more conceptual model by which I used surfaces instead of solids to create a 3 dimensional space. By folding a surface inwards ore upwards, space is created that can be used either private or collective. With this method gradations can be created between the private and collective space.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that I’m searching for a solution to household families inside the city. I am searching for an intelligent trick or innovation that can be used as a leading concept.

For example the story ‘the Truffle’ in Spain from Ensamble Studio. The architects dug a hole and packed it whit hey. Then they poured concrete around it. When the concrete had set, the earth was removed to expose a large monolithic stone. The architects then made some cuts into this stone and then invited a cow to eat the hey out so eventually a cave like space was left

In this case the hey is the design and the cow is the innovation.

The question is:

What can be the innovation to household families inside the city?

Tutor

Gerjan Streng, BRIGHT / The Cloud Collective Examiner

Jelle Houben, Houben van Mierlo Architecten Consultancy

Jan Hobstaken, lid PVDA publieke ruimte regio Eindhoven

Planning

Presentation 3. Programmatic spatial design. 19.01.2018 Presentation 4. Preliminary design. 23.02.2018 Presentation 5. Definitive design. 20.04.2018 Presentation 6. Exam. 15.06.2018

Footnotes

1. Unicef. Interactive map of urbanization. https://www.nrc.nl/

nieuws/2012/02/28/in-2050-woont-70-procent-van-de-mensen-in-de- stad-a1447273

2. VPRO. Tegenlicht, City for sale. https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/

tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/2017-2018/city-for-sale.html 3. idem

4. Woonlab (2017) ). Eengezinsappartement: een gesprek tussen stadmakers. Gestapeld wonen voor gezinnen in de stad? Rotterdam.

Veenman+

5. Fujimoto, S. (2008). Sou Fujimoto: Primitive Future. Tokyo. LIXIL Publishing

Literature list

Fujimoto, S. (2008). Sou Fujimoto: Primitive Future. Tokyo. LIXIL Publishing Van Klingeren, F. (2003). Hinder en ontklontering, Architectuur en maatschappij in het werk van Frank van Klingeren. Rotterdam. Uitgeverij 010 A+T Research group. (2015). Why density? Debunking the myth of the cubic watermelon. Vitoria-Gasteiz. A+T architecture publishers

Woonlab (2017). Eengezinsappartement: een gesprek tussen stadmakers.

Gestapeld wonen voor gezinnen in de stad? Rotterdam. Veenman+

Prof. Schroeder, U. (1979). Variabel nutzbare Häuser und Wohnungen. Berlin.

Bauverlag GmbH

Van der Pennen, T. (2016). Bouwstenen uit de recente geschiedenis van de stedelijke ontwikkeling. Amsterdam. IOS Press BV

Philips, D. Yamashita, Megumi. (2012). Detail in contemporary concrete architecture. London. Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

El qroquis. (2012). RCR Arquitectes, poetic abstraction. Madrid. El Escorial Camp, P. (2017). Wonen in de 21ste eeuw. Naar een hedendaags utopia.

Den Haag. Acco Nederland

Unicef. Interactive map of urbanization. Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.

nl/nieuws/2012/02/28/in-2050-woont-70-procent-van-de-mensen-in-de- stad-a1447273

VPRO. Tegenlicht, City for sale. Retrieved from: https://www.vpro.nl/

programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/2017-2018/city-for-sale.html Planbureau voor de leefomgeving. PBL. Regionale bevolkingsgroei. Retrieved from: http://www.pbl.nl/themasites/regionale-bevolkingsprognose

the outcome of interviews with families graphically displayed

Johan van den Boom | Fontys MA+U | Graduation studio | 08.12.2017 | Presentation 2 | Project specs

ma di wo do vr za zo di wo do vr za zo

ma di wo do vr za zo ma di wo do vr za zo

ma di wo do vr za zo ma di wo do vr za

zo at home

at work work at home leicure/sports

study room can easily be one space that transforms its function thru out the day.

On a bigger scale a central space can function as a café, workplace, low-cost kitchen accessible for families or be used for certain events for residents and surrounding citizens.

Theory

Living together with families and sharing things is living in a collective way. This demands for a certain attention while designing spaces. For example; if everything is designed as one big space people don’t feel connected and the space probably ends up being empty thru out the day. If you design a space which is limited for one function only people interested in that specific function use the space. There is also the danger that people put claim on a certain space by performing a particular activity. This creates the fact that other people are excluded from using that space

Therefor one of my research questions is:

What size of space can you share and with how many families can you share it?

The concept I want to use to design these spaces with a certain nuance is the concept of gradations of Sou Fujimoto:

‘Gradations will become the keyword for the future of architecture. For instance, there are infinite colorific degrees between white and black, and innumerable values between 1 and 0. Conventional architecture systematizes our world in the name of ‘functionalism’, as of clearly differentiated into black and white. However, our contemporary lives are sustained by myriads of unpredictable actions that lie between them.’5 livingstreet/square

royal entry collective playroom

pantry

solidarity peace/privacy

central meeting space

parking car sharing/parking extra room

laundry

action radius

connectivity

scale safe neighborhood

Contextual

school uses a bit of the park but placed a fence around it so my idea was to lift the building up and let the park go underneath it. Below the park can continue and on top housing for families can be build.

The houses are designed as little pixels. By shifting them forth and back niches are created than can be used as collectively shared gardens. Hereby circulation space and collective space merge into each other and creates gradations between public and private.

Analyzing the research, I can conclude I’ve been using elements that can be found in Structuralism, which is an architecture period in the 70’s. I use these elements to scale down and to create gradations between public and private. The question is can these elements be used maximum to create a project for family housing?

Research by design 2

The second part of research by design that I did was by analyzing the private space with the shared space.

I drew them as a coalition between solid-space and void-space. The idea is that the void is the space that is accessible to anyone and that you can share.

In the first study the plan is drawn as a radial plan. The entrees are shared by two households. They can make use of the extended hallway to use it for their baby car, washing machine, bicycle etc. The housing units are connected to a central room. During the day this room can be used as a playroom for kids and at night as a shared living room. In the middle is a dividing furniture peace that is able to divide the room in two or four and then is able to use as multiple guestroom. From this central space, four other spaces are connected that are free for the residents to use them however they want.

One could be an office to work from home while the other can be used as a little gym.

The reference shows a way to connect the apartments with the central space in a playful way.

The second study is sort of similar. Here the units are placed around a central square. The difference is that from each unit, one room is taken away and used as a shared room. In this case the room can be shared again for a study, playroom or extra guestroom. For example, it would be silly to have a gym inside each housing unit, but to share one gym with four families is quit realistic.

The third study is in the form of shared hallway’s. by taking away the space of a unit, and giving it back as shared space once again this space can be filled in however the residents would like.

The next step I did is try to use these plans to make them into 3d models. The outcome is quite limited cause it results in stacking units. I tried to play with other compositions and think about how to create void spaces that can be used as shared collective space. Then I made a conceptual model of voids and solids. This is more interesting because the voids become 3 dimensional.

Still the solids are quit limited as private space so I made one more conceptual model by which I used surfaces instead of solids to create a 3 dimensional space. By folding a surface inwards ore upwards, space is created that can be used either private or collective. With this method gradations can be created between the private and collective space.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that I’m searching for a solution to household families inside the city. I am searching for an intelligent trick or innovation that can be used as a leading concept.

For example the story ‘the Truffle’ in Spain from Ensamble Studio. The architects dug a hole and packed it whit hey. Then they poured concrete around it. When the concrete had set, the earth was removed to expose a large monolithic stone. The architects then made some cuts into this stone and then invited a cow to eat the hey out so eventually a cave like space was left

In this case the hey is the design and the cow is the innovation.

The question is:

What can be the innovation to household families inside the city?

Tutor

Gerjan Streng, BRIGHT / The Cloud Collective Examiner

Jelle Houben, Houben van Mierlo Architecten Consultancy

Jan Hobstaken, lid PVDA publieke ruimte regio Eindhoven

Planning

Presentation 3. Programmatic spatial design. 19.01.2018 Presentation 4. Preliminary design. 23.02.2018 Presentation 5. Definitive design. 20.04.2018 Presentation 6. Exam. 15.06.2018

Footnotes

1. Unicef. Interactive map of urbanization. https://www.nrc.nl/

nieuws/2012/02/28/in-2050-woont-70-procent-van-de-mensen-in-de- stad-a1447273

2. VPRO. Tegenlicht, City for sale. https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/

tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/2017-2018/city-for-sale.html 3. idem

4. Woonlab (2017) ). Eengezinsappartement: een gesprek tussen stadmakers. Gestapeld wonen voor gezinnen in de stad? Rotterdam.

Veenman+

5. Fujimoto, S. (2008). Sou Fujimoto: Primitive Future. Tokyo. LIXIL Publishing

Literature list

Fujimoto, S. (2008). Sou Fujimoto: Primitive Future. Tokyo. LIXIL Publishing Van Klingeren, F. (2003). Hinder en ontklontering, Architectuur en maatschappij in het werk van Frank van Klingeren. Rotterdam. Uitgeverij 010 A+T Research group. (2015). Why density? Debunking the myth of the cubic watermelon. Vitoria-Gasteiz. A+T architecture publishers

Woonlab (2017). Eengezinsappartement: een gesprek tussen stadmakers.

Gestapeld wonen voor gezinnen in de stad? Rotterdam. Veenman+

Prof. Schroeder, U. (1979). Variabel nutzbare Häuser und Wohnungen. Berlin.

Bauverlag GmbH

Van der Pennen, T. (2016). Bouwstenen uit de recente geschiedenis van de stedelijke ontwikkeling. Amsterdam. IOS Press BV

Philips, D. Yamashita, Megumi. (2012). Detail in contemporary concrete architecture. London. Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

El qroquis. (2012). RCR Arquitectes, poetic abstraction. Madrid. El Escorial Camp, P. (2017). Wonen in de 21ste eeuw. Naar een hedendaags utopia.

Den Haag. Acco Nederland

Unicef. Interactive map of urbanization. Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.

nl/nieuws/2012/02/28/in-2050-woont-70-procent-van-de-mensen-in-de- stad-a1447273

VPRO. Tegenlicht, City for sale. Retrieved from: https://www.vpro.nl/

programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/2017-2018/city-for-sale.html Planbureau voor de leefomgeving. PBL. Regionale bevolkingsgroei. Retrieved from: http://www.pbl.nl/themasites/regionale-bevolkingsprognose

(9)

Family Matters Final presentation Logbook

72m2

68m2

65m2

61m2

79m2 94m2

58m2 63m2 66m2 71m2 72m2 93m2

192m2

30m2 45m2

46m2

41m2

31m2

42m2

42m2

42m2

30m2 30m2 46m2

47.4%

37.9%

10%4.7%

95.3% = liveble

19m2

14m2

6m2 5m2

72m2

68m2

65m2

61m2

79m2 94m2

58m2 63m2 66m2 71m2 72m2 93m2

192m2

30m2 45m2

46m2

41m2

31m2

42m2

42m2

42m2

30m2 30m2 46m2

47.4%

37.9%

10% 4.7%

95.3% = liveble

19m2

14m2

6m2 5m2

avarage floorspace pp.

42m2

avarage floorspace pp.

33m2 (25% less)

shared facilities CONCEPT

‘4-ROOM APARTMENT COST E2000,- PM. 70% LESS OF THE AVERAGE PRICE IN ZURICH’.

72m2

68m2

65m2

61m2

79m2 94m2

58m2 63m2 66m2 71m2 72m2 93m2

192m2

30m2 45m2

46m2

41m2

31m2

42m2

42m2

42m2

30m2 30m2 46m2

47.4%

37.9%

10%4.7%

95.3% = liveble

FLOORPLAN LAYOUT 8 APARTMENTS PER FLOOR COMMUNAL AREA COMMUNAL SERVICES

RESEARCH

‘Analysing Mehr als Wohnen’, a shared

housing project in Zurich by Duplex

Architects

(10)

72m2

68m2

65m2

61m2

79m2 94m2

58m2 63m2 66m2 71m2 72m2 93m2

192m2

30m2 45m2

46m2 41m2

31m2

42m2

42m2

42m2

30m2 30m2 46m2

47.4%

37.9%

10%4.7%

95.3% = liveble

19m2

14m2

6m2 5m2 19m2

14m2

6m2 5m2

72m2

68m2

65m2

61m2

79m2 94m2

58m2 63m2 66m2 71m2 72m2 93m2

192m2

30m2 45m2

46m2 41m2

31m2

42m2

42m2

42m2

30m2 30m2 46m2

47.4% 37.9%

10%4.7%

95.3% = liveble

19m2

14m2

6m2 5m2

72m2

68m2

65m2

61m2

79m2 94m2

58m2 63m2 66m2 71m2 72m2 93m2

192m2

30m2 45m2

46m2

41m2

31m2

42m2

42m2

42m2

30m2 30m2 46m2

47.4%

37.9%

10% 4.7%

95.3% = liveble

19m2

14m2

6m2 5m2

APARTMENTS:

1. 93 m2 2. 72 m2 3. 66 m2 4. 63 m2 5. 58 m2 6. 94 m2 7. 79 m2 8. 61 m 9. 65 m2 10. 68 m2 11. 72 m2 12. 93 m2 tot. 884 m2 884/12=74 m2 per unit trafficspace (rest) 192 m2 78.3% is liveble

APARTMENTS:

1. 31 m2 2. 30 m2 3. 45 m2 4. 46 m2 5. 41 m2 6. 42 m2 7. 46 m2 8. 42 m2 9. 42 m2 10. 30 m2 11. 30 m2

tot. 425 m2 communal space 150+37=187 m2 124+29=153 m2 tot. 340 m2

72m2

68m2

65m2

61m2

79m2 94m2

58m2 63m2 66m2 71m2 72m2 93m2

192m2

30m2 45m2

46m2 41m2

31m2

42m2

42m2

42m2

30m2 30m2 46m2

47.4%

37.9%

10%4.7%

95.3% = liveble

19m2

14m2

6m2 5m2

facilities 90 m2 trafficspace 41 m2

Netto area calculation tot. 896 m2 Gross area calculation tot. 1140m2

95,3% is liveble

‘Analysing Mehr als Wohnen’, a shared

housing project in Zurich by Duplex

Architects

(11)

Family Matters Final presentation Logbook

1. Exit

2. Childbirth clinic 3. Courtyard

4. Entrance hall / reception 5. Laundry room

6. Cafeteria

7. Conferance room (flex) 8. Communal office 9. geust home

10. dinning/ livingroom large household 11. Dwellings large household

2.

7.

8.

7.

5. 16.

9.

4.

6.

7.

10.

11.

apartments

courtyard

hall for trams

private/communal 60%

communal

public 40%

concept scheme:

2 worlds connecting in de middle

city

housing communal spaces 'rue interieure'

2325m 3.

2

1.

apartments communal

offices offices bar/cafe

apartments apartments apartments apartments

communal

cinema doctor shops shops

offices/shops cinemabars tramhall

Single-person household Two-person household Single-parent household Family household

Shared flat with children Shared flat

Joker flat

1. Exit 2. Childbirth clinic 3. Courtyard 4. Entrance hall / reception 5. Laundry room 6. Cafeteria 7. Conferance room (flex) 8. Communal office 9. geust home

10. dinning/ livingroom large household 11. Dwellings large household 2.

7.

8.

7.

5. 16.

9.

4.

6.

7.

10.

11.

apartments

courtyard

hall for trams

private/communal 60%

communal public 40%

concept scheme:

2 worlds connecting in de middle city housing

communal spaces 'rue interieure'

2325m3. 2 1.

apartments communal offices offices bar/cafe

apartments apartments apartments apartments

communal cinema doctor shops shops

offices/shops bars cinema tramhall

Single-person household Two-person household Single-parent household Family household Shared flat with children Shared flat

Joker flat

CONCEPT SCHEME, 2 WORLDS CONNECTING IN DE MIDDLE

RESEARCH

1. Exit 2. Childbirth clinic 3. Courtyard 4. Entrance hall / reception 5. Laundry room 6. Cafeteria 7. Conferance room (flex) 8. Communal office 9. geust home

10. dinning/ livingroom large household 11. Dwellings large household 2.

7.

8.

7.

5. 16.

9.

4.

6.

7.

10.

11.

apartments

courtyard

hall for trams

private/communal 60%

communal public 40%

concept scheme:

2 worlds connecting in de middle city

housing communal spaces 'rue interieure'

2325m3. 2 1.

apartments communal

offices offices bar/cafe

apartments apartments apartments apartments

communal cinema doctor shops shops

offices/shops cinemabars tramhall

Single-person household Two-person household Single-parent household Family household

1. Exit 2. Childbirth clinic 3. Courtyard 4. Entrance hall / reception 5. Laundry room 6. Cafeteria 7. Conferance room (flex) 8. Communal office 9. geust home

10. dinning/ livingroom large household 11. Dwellings large household 2.

7.

8.

7.

5. 16.

9.

4.

6.

7.

10.

11.

apartments

courtyard

hall for trams

private/communal 60%

communal public 40%

concept scheme:

2 worlds connecting in de middle city

housing communal spaces 'rue interieure'

2325m3. 2 1.

apartments communal

offices offices bar/cafe

apartments apartments apartments apartments

communal cinema doctor shops shops

offices/shops bars cinema tramhall

Single-person household Two-person household Single-parent household Family household Shared flat with children Shared flat

Joker flat

2nd floorplan, interaction between the courtyard and the

building

programmatic section view of the courtyard

‘Analysing Kalkbreite’, a genossenschaft

housing project in Zurich by Muller Sigrist

Architects

(12)

‘THE BUILDING IS DEFINED AS A HOSTEL SO THAT MANY REGULATIONS

APPLICABLE TO HOUSING DO NOT

COUNT’.

Private 21,3 m

2

Private 17,4 m

2

+ 3,9 m2 public/communal

12.5m

Private:

73 units x 50m2 = 3650 m2 Public/collective:

570m2 + 253 m2 = 823 m2 4473 m2 / 210 people

Private 21,3 m

2

Private 17,4 m

2

+ 3,9 m2 public/communal

12.5m

Public/collective:

570m2 + 253 m2 = 823 m2 4473 m2 / 210 people

‘Analysing Sargfabrik’, a genossenschaft

housing project in Vienna by BKK-3

Architects

(13)

89400

11900

82501190011900

3700

3200 4900 4630

1300

89400

1190 0

825 0 1190 0 1190 0

3700

3200 4900 4630

1300

‘THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECT LIES IN THE SUBTLE DETAILING OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PUBLIC, COLLECTIVE AND PRIVATE’.

RESEARCH

‘Analysing Zelterstrasse, a collective

ownership housing project in Berlin by

Zanderroth Architects

(14)

Vestdijkm city boulevard

Tramstraat, village character

Map of the location in Eindhoven and the

incapsulating between 2 worlds.

(15)

apartments shopping center apartments restaurant offices + apartments offices offices + apartments offices restaurant + apartments cinema historic centre Eindhoven bars and restaurants supermark et apartments student hotel central station

offices Pullman hotel expats center luciferfabriek parking

VD MA factory Effenaar

supermark et row housing

apartments

Vestdijk

Tramstraat

Raffaissenstraat

LOCATION

Location studies

(16)

Zusterflat, build in 1950 source: Eindhoven in beeld Luciferfabriek, build in 1890

source: Waardestellend bouwhistorisch onderzoek

VDMA garage, building in 1929

source: Waardestellend bouwhistorisch onderzoek

History of the

existing buildings

(17)

LOCATION

Villa Mignot en van de Block Zusterflat left side Zusterflat right side Pullman hotel

Streetview images of

the existing buildings

(18)

Underneath and inside

the complex

(19)

LOCATION

The old ‘ Luciferfabriek’

(20)

garden central

heart

flexwork

livingroom

healthcare

daycare playroom

sports

workshop

joker dwelling

private

room

bedroom

pantry bathroom spa

carpark

PUBLIC ROUTE SHORT ROUTE CLOSED ROUTE

public

semi- public

semi- private

private

(21)

public

semi- public

semi- private

private central

heart

sports/

healthcare theater/

lectures/

meetings

daycare daycare

workshop

shop

health- care health-

care

shared living/

kitchen

confer- ance

washbar

flexwork house

house

house house

house

shared living/

kitchen shared

living/

kitchen

shared living/

kitchen

stairs to spa

SKEMES VO-DESIGN

(22)

public

semi- public

semi- private

private house

house

house

house

house shared

living/

kitchen

house

house shared

living/

kitchen shared

living/

kitchen

house

house shared

living/

kitchen

flexwork

central heart theater/

lectures/

meetings

(23)

public

semi- public

semi- private

private house

house

house

house

house theater/

lectures/

meetings

house

SKEMES VO-DESIGN

(24)

public

semi- public

semi- private

private

PUBLIC ROUTE SHORT ROUTE CLOSED ROUTE

(25)

SKETCHES SKETCHES

Criticizing the collective space among

social housing projects

(26)

emphasizing the piazza square in

Eindhoven for its active use

(27)

SKETCHES

studies on activating the social space

(28)

studying the design principles of borders

between spaces

(29)

SKETCHES

Network of social spaces

(30)

Studying floorplan layouts and the use of

hallway space as shared spaces

(31)

park facility

towards nature

community house market

village square

events neighbors

school

SKETCHES

The expension of borders diagram

(32)

the city

The city is a place for opportunities, people educate themselves, build up a network of friends, there are job opportunities, the city is vibrant, alive, active, lots of stuff is going on.

Because of these reasons people want to live in cities. But that creates a problem; there are not enough houses, at least at this moment.

gentrification

There are two things happening according to this process and strangely enough they are either positive as negative.

1. The boundaries of the city center a pushing to the outside. Neighborhoods are being transformed and made interesting again for housing. The positive is that it can upgrade a neighborhood thru the process of gentrification.

2. That same process of gentrification can also be a problem. Places that where vibrant because of its mixed society, becomes monotone and strangely enough there is only be build and upgraded for a selective group of people. Mostly students, young

urban professionals and expats.

families

There is one specific target group for whom it is almost impossible to live in cities; families!

And this specific target group is a very good one to create healthy environments because of how they use it. They take extra care of their environment for their children, their kids are little connecters forcing parent (in a healthy way) to get in contact thru all social classes.

The social class is being pushed outside the city but the fact is that because of this reason places in cities become boring. It only facilitates for a certain group of people meaning that the cityscape becomes

all the same.

(33)

park facility

towards nature

community house market village square

events

neighbors

school

family house

Although families would like to live is cities, they grew up there and created their network and social live there, the city doesn’t provide a place to live.

A city apartment doesn’t provide the place to live there because its missing spaces like; an attic, garden, hallway etc.

family environment

The other reason is the direct environment, as families you are more dependent on their social network, the city there for is very black and white. There is the live inside of the apartment and the life outside and suddenly you’re in a mega crowded environment.

The suburbs ore villages provide certain gradations by which families can expand. the house, the front garden, the street, the village square, the school etc.

densifying

But building rowhouses with a street and back garden in a city is impossible. Because cities are dealing with densification. It would be way overpriced because of its low density and they’re for only accessible

for the elite and not helping a city with the main problem of the city.

hypothesis

Therefor this project is about finding new ways for housing families inside a city and to create the environment which is wanted for them. It’s about densifying and still giving them the spaces that they need to run their family lives.

SKETCHES

(34)

Location studies

(35)

DO-DESIGN

GSEducationalVersion

WWWWWWWW

Hallway 223.38 m2

Apartment 61.36 m2

Apartment 39.00 m2

Apartment 37.50 m2

Apartment

39.00 m2 Apartment

39.00 m2

Hallway 260.37 m2

traffic space 29.50 m2

Communal space 94.40 m2 Toilets 12.50 m2

Laundry corner 30.68 m2

Toilets 23.43 m2

Commercial space 770.22 m2 Indoor playground

438.19 m2 Daycare 436.52 m2

Garden patio 330.52 m2

shared bikes 68.04 m2 multi-purpose space

37.46 m2 multi-purpose space

37.46 m2 multi-purpose space

37.46 m2

groundfloorplan

(36)

Apartment 43.07 m2

Apartment 39.00 m2

Apartment 39.00 m2

Apartment 39.00 m2 Apartment

43.07 m2 Apartment 43.07 m2 Apartment 43.07 m2

Apartment 39.00 m2

Apartment 39.00 m2

Apartment 39.00 m2

Apartment 45.43 m2

traffic space 29.50 m2

Apartment 45.43 m2

Joker dwelling 43.07 m2 Joker dwelling 43.07 m2

Apartment 47.74 m2

Apartment 47.74 m2

Apartment

47.74 m2 Apartment

47.74 m2 Apartment

47.74 m2 Apartment

76.58 m2 Apartment

78.42 m2 Apartment

76.58 m2

1st floorplan

(37)

DO-DESIGN

GSEducationalVersion

Roofgarden 246.84 m2 Apartment 43.07 m2 Apartment 43.07 m2 Apartment 43.07 m2 Apartment 43.07 m2

Hallway 553.21 m2

Roofgarden 242.57 m2

Apartment 45.43 m2

Apartment 45.43 m2 Apartment

45.43 m2 Apartment

45.43 m2

Apartment 45.25 m2

Apartment 45.25 m2

Apartment

69.69 m2 Apartment

69.69 m2

Apartment

45.25 m2 Apartment

45.25 m2 Apartment

69.69 m2

Apartment 69.69 m2 Apartment

76.58 m2 Apartment

78.42 m2 Apartment

76.58 m2

Apartment 47.74 m2

Apartment 47.74 m2

Apartment

47.74 m2 Apartment

47.74 m2 Apartment

47.74 m2

2nd floorplan

(38)
(39)

DO-DESIGN

(40)
(41)

DO-DESIGN

(42)
(43)

DO-DESIGN

(44)
(45)

Ecological Roofterras Rainwater harvesting sharing of facilities

reducing 75% of kitchens

Underground parking with 52 cars to share Re-use of buildings

Re-use of buildings

Flexible building grid

Waterbasins serve as waterbuffering for heavy storms

Large roofsurface for solar ponels

Soundfree environment

in urban context Multiple places for people to meet Medialab, a place for

city events

Making new connections, activation areas inside the city

Energy and heat storage in the grond halfclimate indoor patio

and housing

DO-DESIGN

(46)

Studying the possibilities of stacking

housing-units

(47)

MODELS

The facade as screen for the world behind

(48)

VO-design

(49)

MODELS

VO-design

(50)

VO-design

(51)

MODELS

VO-design

(52)

Final design, model in progress

(53)

Afbeelding

Updating...

Referenties

Updating...

Gerelateerde onderwerpen :