GREECEBack to ADU2020
Back to Pilot Projects
PP2 SOCIAL HOUSING
Location D: Contemporary shopping venues, theme parks and vacant land scattered The study area is located east of the urban area of the city. The main activities developed in this part of the city, are trade and recreation, while a large part of it, consists of unstructured spaces in forms of farmlands. The built environment is not a result of urban planning as the activities commercial or recreational are found scattered with no connection between them. There is also minimal residential development and several structured spaces with no use. Access to the area is mainly done by car and public transport through the two large arterial roads that surround it. Τhe advisement about the safety of pedestrians inside the done properly. This situation arises largely from the major shopping centers and leisure facilities, which is the main source of attracting people for specific activities – needs. As for the green areas, the shortage is obvious, since there are no organized green spaces, only scattered trees separating the freehold land. The lack of greenery helps to diffuse noise from various sources disturbance. In summary, this is one area where housing is almost non-existent, while the activities of commerce and leisure is very intense. The large unstructured spaces offers a habitable perspective of the area, in such a case, however, great attention should be given to the safety of the pedestrians and the recreation of well designed green spaces. At the same time the built space which is currently empty could accommodate cultural uses that contribute to the quality of life in the region. The road network is organized to ensure better communication between existing functions and their consistency with new uses. To ensure the (urban) continuity in the area, a traffic network was created more pedestrian-friendly, for both the resident and visitor, which sometimes coexists with roads and other stands out from it, forming local widenings, view points and recreation areas, parks. Combined with a filter-zone at the boundary with the peripheral road and the unified waterfront where all the vertical routes end. Actions _Unification of Recreational and commercial centers of attraction _Better quality of the urban environment and regeneration projects _Better Transportation and communication _Development of a road system With proper definition of the building terms we seek to achieve what we originally thought. Cooperation proposals with the land owners for public benefit.
Starting from a logic about the organization of a city which says that the latter should consists of built-up areas with higher and lower density, additionally with our desire not to create strictly separate zones of densities, we abut to a loose organizational form, where regions with different density of buildings coexist and enter fluidly one into another. Thus, regions of diverse densities are forming a mesh, while being allocated evenly on site, without causing strict segregation and sense of seclusion between areas with different qualities
The relationship between cohabitation and social living has always been a challenge as far as urban design and living scenarios were concerned. There are many parameters that affect the relationship between public and private spaces and the way they interact with each other and,consequently affect social living. We tried according to ‘’the bottom up design’’ and considering the parameter of time ,to examine forms of the relationship that public and private spaces could take and give out some living synecdoches and living modules as well, as the way that our modules are spread and interact with each other and with other existing buildings and facilities in the examined area E in the landscape given. Taking in account the proposal of the winning team in the midterm presentation , as far as the relationship between public and private spaces were concerned, we tried to embrace their basic principles and adapt them in our design.Therefore, we created new types of modules and new types of relationship between them, so that we can meet the winners’ expectations during the expansion of the modules in the area.
Module design principals
-organization of the module according to a basic axe
-enclosed type of building with strict top view, but with different optical qualities in the other views
- conservation of the unit with two batteries of uses: residential use in the outer battery and commercial uses-entertainment in the inner battery.
-creation of a new unit with only residential use that expands throughout the landscape in a chain form
-integration of “green” element and creation of public spaces on rooftops
Basic goals for master plan design
-Sense of continuity and cooperation between public and private spaces, harmonious
-Sense of uninterrupted movement throughout the landscape
with guidance by the basic axes and alignments.
Master plan design principals
-Localization of the basic cores of uses with the existing buildings and
facilities –> tried to cross them all with only one basic route
- The organization of the master plan was made according to :
1)the basic axe-route that joins the urban front and the waterfront crossing the cores
(the commercial pedestrian road and road for cars in the middle of the area). This basic axe functions as a
backbone for the area and in either side of it, and according to it ,neighborhoods , public spaces and existing
buildings are organized
2)Routes and pedestrian roads were designed in order to achieve a variety of moving options around the landscape
and crossing the cores of public uses and neighborhoods
3) The partially enclosed neighborhoods, created by the chain form expansion of the new module , create open communal
space (squares) for social interaction and activities. The bigger modules of mixed uses of residence and commercial uses
are placed along the basic route pointing it out
-Ground floor in bigger 2 -battery modules of mixed uses is public , whereas ground floor in smaller module of
resident uses is sometimes semipublic and sometimes private addressed only for the residents of the specific block
Ο ορθοκανονικός κάνναβος προσαρμόζεται στο ανάγλυφο του εδάφους και τα επιμέρους τετράγωνα που τον απαρτίζουν κατ΄επέκταση μεταβάλλονται, κυρτώνονται και καμπυλώνουν .
Τα όρια ενός τέτοιου οικοδομικού τετραγώνου οργανώνουν ένα σύνολο ενοτήτων συγκατοίκησης. Η μονάδα συγκατοίκησης χαρακτηρίζεται ως ένας οργανικός σχηματισμός αρκετά εσωστρεφής ο οποίος στο εσωτερικό του υποδέχεται τον δημόσιο χώρο. Ο δημόσιος χώρος ο οποίος εικάζεται ότι θα βιώνεται από τους κάτοικους της εκάστοτε μονάδας συγκατοίκησης. Η λογική του παραπέμπει στη έννοια της ελληνικής γειτονίας. Το ενδιαφέρον τοποθετείται στον πυρήνα ενώ ένα περίκλειστο σχήμα το προστατεύει.
Σχετικά με το δημόσιο χώρο άξιο αναφοράς είναι ότι στο επίπεδο του ισογείου εμφανίζεται μόνο στο εσωτερικό καθώς και στα ανώτερα επίπεδά των συγκροτημάτων συγκατοίκησης , ενώ στο χώρο εκτός των συγκροτημάτων ,ο δημόσιος χώρος οργανώνεται σε χαμηλότερο επίπεδο σε σχέση με την στάθμη των ισογείων.
Το συνταίριασμα της πρότασης μας καθώς και της πρότασης που επιλέγει οδήγησε στη σύζευξη του καθ’ ύψους διαμορφωμένου δημόσιου χώρου ανάμεσα σε δυο κάθε φόρα ενότητες συγκατοίκησης με τη χρήση συστήματος ραμπών , οι οποίες εξυπηρετούν τους πεζούς .
The orthogonal grid is adapted to the terrain, and its individual constituent blocks are being altered, bent and curved.
The blocks’ limits organize a set of modules of cohabitation. These units can be characterized as an organic formation, quite introvert, which encloses the public space. That public space is assumed to be experienced by residents of each unit of cohabitation.
The logic of the concept refers to the idea of ‘Greek neighborhood’. The interest is appeared to be in the core, and it its highly being protected by those enclosed shapes.
As far as public space is concerned , noteworthy is the fact that is appeared to be not only on the ground floor , but also in higher levels of cohabitation complexes, while in the area outside the assemblies, is organized at a lower level in relation to the ground floor.
Finally, The reconciliation of our proposal, which is mentioned above, and the proposal which has been chosen, whose main concern is the coupling of two blocks of cohabitation, led to the conjugation of the public space which appears on the higher levels between two block of cohabitation each time, using a complex system of ramps , serving pedestrians.
The main objective of the team was, initially, the respect of the concept of cohabitation, where residents live, work, cohabitate harmoniously, with a balance between private and public life. Furthermore, a model of dynamic growth of the settlement (sygkatoikein) was sought, so as its spread and size could keep pace with people’s needs and respond to different choices. At the same time, it was a choice of the team to base the initial idea on attributes that are identified in the entire area given to design, so that the proposal relates to the entire environment in any sub-region to be placed.
So, having identified the cores of the different uses spotted in the area and their dynamic intensities, voronoi system was chosen as the original development model because it allows for dynamic, flexible and unpredictable deployment of units.
Those “use” cores were defined as the centers of the voronoi units, while their heights were determined by the size of the intensity. The unit can be continuously spreading organically in every direction, based on the reproduction of the original centers / points, depending on the preferences of the inhabitants. Each piece of the puzzle is a habitation module that can combine homes, public spaces and work.
Between the occupied space there are “gaps” that can be used as common courtyards of the surrounding buildings. Furthermore, there will be common use spaces that relate to all units (community). As a result, we have two scales for shared space: internal courtyards for a group of buildings and the common areas on all units (community).
The hybrid model of organization that emerged after the union with the winning proposal (stage a’), is based upon the voronoi cores affecting the plan and the of the subunits (four-sided polygons, roof is not curved). The human chain is now the exemplar, as people are the main factor of cohabitation.
Apart from the enclosed public areas of daily use, it is strongly thought and that the free space is as important to achieve cohabitation, in any of the 2 scales mentioned above. This space is formed each time by the needs of the residents and hosts group activities. Sometimes, it is characterized by introversion (turn its back to incompatible uses with housing area) and sometimes from extroversion.
Additionally, nodes are created (of primary and secondary significance), which are connected together organically. A diversity in functions – activities – images moves in each unit / different experiences during the walk is accomplished. Finally, it should be noted that a more specific design of individual modules was avoided (views, conclusive plan solution), as their final configuration is based upon the particularities, the choices and the aesthetics of the residents. After all, the living communities rely on the participation of the residents in the planning process and the final decisions.
Being concerned about the form that cohabitation has taken in contemporary cities we wander what were and are the spatial circumstances under which cohabitation has been determined in each
From the individuality the estrangement of the dense city until the experience of locus in terms of proximity and trust, in provincial places, there is a big gap.
The same thing happens between suburbia (wasteful of land) and the city (far too removed from the land).
We are about to explore the possibilities of a region-territory-district straight at the limits of our city , so this region marks a transition. The question is what do we suggest instead of living in blocks and suburban individual houses? The answer can be living and cohabitating in clusters.
Separation of life and car. A combination of two different layers of movement. A pedestrian and car red.
Interiority in the schematic layout of residence.
Common green and activity spaces for residential groups.
Protection from the outside without buildings-shields..but with a gradual increase and reduction of the height of the residential units from the outside to the inside.
Slight elevation from the side of the road.
Creating useful place for covering the parking needs of the residences.
We are used to live in spaces that are defined by very strict limits. Those limits separate the space into private or public in an absolute way causing the continuity of public space to be interrupted. Although, within the limits of private and public space, there are also the not so distinguishable and much more lenient limits, those of semi-private and semi-public space. The moment we take the first step outside our home to get to the street or to a public space of our cities, we continuously negotiate with those limits. The fight between public and private space can be noticed all around us.
All people have a need for a center in their lives, around which and by using it as a reference point, move and operate. In our opinion, if this center is moved from something absolutely private, such as a house, to something that we all have in common, such as the space between our home and public space, can provide us with new perspectives on our everyday life.
Taking as an example and as a structure model the atom, the smallest possible participle, which in many forms and chemical compositions is the basis of every living organism, we are trying to create our main component of the area where the co-housing will be developed. So, we define as a core and as a center of the development the semi-public and semi-private spaces, which we consider as a reference point for any activity during the day, and around which coexist the more private ones.
Going further in the analysis of the space as we are used to live in, we tried to determine what features are regarded as the most undesirable but also to think ways how we can reverse them by creating new living conditions. So we made some decisions, on which the design was based, and are the following:
- Equitable distribution of communal space throughout the extent of the model dwelling. Allows creation of imprecise relations between units.
- Diversification through public nodes. Injection mass gaps instead of separating. Creating identity through variation and diversity gaps.
- Multiple unit connections with the public space. A network of movement nodes is preferred to a linear movement.
- Integrated public areas adjacent to each unit. Any relationship that is created is unique.
Regarding the form of cohabitation that we propose, the main component is the sharing of indoor spaces that we use in daily basis. This sharing doesn’t work in a fix standard way, but it can be interchanged depending on the needs of the users. These indoor spaces along with all the outdoor common spaces create a system that runs through the entire development.
We try to find the best possible way to satisfy the relationships between full and vacuum by spreading the public spaces throughout the area evenly and by creating a system of multiple-choice movement. This is mainly achieved with the combination of rectangular blocks 14x10x60 that re combined in pairs, creating a layered system. The house area is developed in a more dynamic way within these rectangular.
BASED IN THE PRINCIPLES OF PARAMETRICISM AND PLAYING WITH THE EXISTING MORPHOLOGY OF THE WIDER AREA OF THESSALONIKI, WE TRIED TO EXPLORE NEW PARADIGMS OF HOUSING AND URBANISM. THIS APPROACH DOES NOT AFFECT THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE URBAN WEB; INSTEAD, IT IS BEING ADAPTIVE TO THE CURRENT AND THE FUTURE NEEDS OF PEOPLE.
The morphology of the building volumes is based on two logics: the logic of fracture and the fractal logic. Divided into two types, perforated buildings with interior private space, that conveys the idea of Greek neighborhood, characterized by volatility, and compact ones, which have a smaller diameter and are scattered into the urban web. The buildings in focal points are taller and as they approach the limits of the urban web, their height decreases, ending up in ground subsidence.
In this way, it creates the feeling of fracture. The buildings appear to move, creating a wave. It IS reminiscent OF the game of life. The figure exudes an introvert. The core extends in all directions, creating fragments. In contrast, the second form of circumferential buildings with compact shape indicates the introversion of modern societies.
The combination of these two forms can be seen as a protest against the existing situation prevalent in modern societies.
The main objective of the team was, initially, the respect of the concept of cohabitation, where residents live/ work/ cohabitate harmoniously, with a balance between private and public life. Furthermore, a model of dynamic growth of the settlement (sygkatoikein) was sought, so as its spread and size could keep pace with people’s needs and respond to different choices. At the same time, it was a choice of the team to base the initial idea on attributes that are identified in the entire area given to design, so that the proposal relates to the entire environment in any sub-region to be placed.
So, having identified the cores of the different uses spotted in the area and their dynamic intensities, voronoi system was chosen as the original development model because it allows for dynamic, flexible and unpredictable deployment of units. Those “use” cores were defined as the centers of the voronoi units, while their heights were determined by the size of the intensity. The unit can be continuously spreading organically in every direction, based on the reproduction of the original centers / points, depending on the preferences of the inhabitants. Each piece of the puzzle is a habitation module that can combine homes, public spaces and work.
Between the occupied space there are “gaps” that can be used as common courtyards of the surrounding buildings. Furthermore, there will be: common use spaces that relate to all units (community). As a result, we have two scales for shared space: internal courtyards for a group of buildings and the common areas on all units (community) Finally, the distances between the subunits also change parametrically depending, every time, on the heights of the elevations.
Using as a structure element the CuBe and focusing on the extension ability, we got inspired of the drop on the water and suggest a co-habiting model that combines communal facilities, work spaces and commercial uses. Citizens determine and construct their own lives according to their individual desires and needs. This solution provides diversity possibilities and unlimited variations of spaces. The uses are mixed as a necessity for a 24hour urban vitality and street life, opportunities for social interaction and feeling of safety.
-Consider distance between buildings to respect people’ s privacy and right to light.
-Square blocks offer flexibility in accomodating a range of building types.
-Irregular arrangement of blocks can respond to the topography and the creation of focal points.
-Block interiors can accomodate a variety of uses, including car parks, service yards, communal gardens, etc. Design for future changes of use
The term of co-habitation refers to the space where the need for social interaction (random or on purpose( is gathered . Co-habitation is a platform of various uses taking place, where either it contains parts in invigoration or not, traction or repulsion, act and react, all these transformed by social vectors up, down or on the surface of the ground. The housing -the most private space a man can have- is given mostly on the surface of the platform in a way that exposes itself at its most. Entertaining and workplace are combined, with the first to be forced upwards and the workplace downwards. At the same time transportation takes action under, over and parallel to the ground level.
The housing system is formed by 20 rectangular buildings which are connected in vertically, and out with the space they share in the cellular layout. The needs of cohabitation are complemented by an underground transport-connection system, while the same time the term ”passage” is amplified in the ground level through the rest housing spaces. Workplaces and places of entertainment are basically diametrically opposed but their terminations are located in the ground level.
_ the proposal seeks to give a new identity in order to differentiate itself from the existing environment.
_ possible to intervene in the area because of the many unexploited urban spaces.
_ the model we propose is a kind of cohabitation composed of private homes supplemented by shared facilities.
_ a key feature of this model is its flexibility according to the visual flee in all directions, forming a wedge shapes.
_ the shared green space is another key feature. The logic of green roofs, sometimes accessible and sometimes not, in their development as they run across the whole building, recommends stops, gatherings and actions , working binding.
_ formation of private and public spaces that serve the needs of modern living.
_ orientation of living rooms, yards and balconies in relation to the sun and the sights.
_ in the middle is organized a central public core, in direct interaction with the existing buildings, which is accessible on the ground floor through the lateral galleries.
_ the character of the central core has mixed use (αccommodation, entertainment, shopping, employment and recreational activities) are all available in the immediate vicinity and preferably within walking distance.
_ the housing building consists of apartments and houses for habitation, where different types of families will live in these units. The forms of cohabitation should not be limited to the existing family model.
_ residents also share activities which may include gardening, child care centers, offices, access to internet, recreational and educational opportunities.
_ its ideal for people who have an apartment, but do not want to feel isolated within it.
_ the design encourages both social contact and personal space. Private homes contain all the features of conventional homes, but residents also have access to extensive common facilities.
_ the beauty of the co – housing model is that every resident has the freedom to choose how much or how less they wish to participate in this lifestyle.
Martin Heidegger in his text “to build, to inhabit, to think” makes to us very clear that: The “to inhabit” does not define the house as a building or as a place to live but speaks about the way we dwell and realize the meaning of the house. In conclusion he said that the human being first of all he must learn to experience a place, to build his environment and uses it daily, so that he can be “among things” and give his place a character.
In this project the concept of the cohabitation is being deconstructed. This meaning then could be used to describe any form of cohabitation in a common place. People live together in everyday life for many reasons. We can see that when they have common interests or elements or goals, living together can be harmonious and of course the opposite cannot be afforded. What I say is that we can have a cohabitation existing an ideal distance between the units. This distance defines the personal space of each one and creates the limits of a creative adjacency.
In Architecture the cohabitation can be interpreted so that the limits differ along with the needs of every time. This state is very much alike with the biological world and then we have new ways of communication, new means of transportation and new forms.
Trying to create a city that the citizens can live together and experience the same things in their houses brings us to a futuristic formative attribution which to be created we need the upgrade of the technical and technological knowledge. We must assume the way the transports will be working and imagine people with more developed spirituality and education.
What does co-habiting means?What does a person want from his surroundings?What ensures well-being? There are many questions that must be answered when it comes to design a place for a lot and different reople. These could be summarized in three variables, with three possible values each: What am i doing? – Where? – With who? The 1st variable is about what a person does: Work, Rest, Fun. The 2nd is about the places where these activities can happen: Private houses, Public buildings, Open spaces. And the 3rd is about the degree of collegiality that can characterize each individual’s activity: Alone, With familiars, With strangers. At this point we need to analyze the escalation of privacy that a space (closed or open) can have: Individual < Family < Neighborhood < District. With all this in mind, we can reach the conclusion that there is not the perfect model, the ideal ONE solution. How one wants to live-resides-cohabits vary from person to person. Co-habiting for some may be associated with the collectivity (CO-habiting), while for others can simply be a proximity where everyone has his unaltered identity (co-HABITING). What we can do in our attempt to meet the needs of the majority, is to create appropriate conditions to fulfill the different desires. Of course, the strict separation of regions is not our goal. Limits are not strict and different region characters enter fluidly to each other. These different characters are translated with different density and different building heights.
Authority in the morphological part of design is the new cube of Rubik, that while being a compact and strict regimen, consists of uneven pieces, which as they move, they create different shapes deconstructing increasingly the original cube.
With the relative densities of the regions from the chromatic diagram, next thing to do is to determine the grid on which the buildings will be placed. Following a procedure in which denser grid means denser construction, we arrive at an elastic and fluid form.
The relationship (spatial, psychological, social ) between cohabitation and social living has always been a challenge as far as urban design and living scenarios were concerned. In present times, the demands of social living and cohabitation have changed. We believe that today, people want to have the certainty of an absolutely private space, with clear boundaries. According to “bottom-up design” and techniques ,and considering the parameter of time, we examined forms this relationship could take and tried to give out some basic synecdoches and living modules that could make this relationship work and reserve a healthy and pleasant environment for the inhabitants. Our basic goals were the following: -organization of the project according to a basic axe – clear separation of private and public spaces -autonomy of the module -possibility of “reading” the building from the outside -exploitation of space in height -private spaces have sight on the public spaces -possibility of expanding the module (both in height and in length) -creation of common public spaces between the subunits (floors) and between the general units (the entire block)
welcome to the design Studio and to the ALFA III ADU2020 Project.
We invite you to know more about the ADU project on the official website, pressing on the Logo, and to take a look on the Brief, Calendar and Tasks. The File button will be our tool to share internal studio information. The Add New Post button will be our tool to upload tasks and works in different stages. (see calendar).
Wishing the best for all, let’s start working!.
Bienvenidos al Proyecto Piloto de ALFA III ADU_2020, que es parte de la Comunidad Europea (Europeaid) y de 18 instituciones de Educación Superior de Latino-América y Europa. Trabajaremos en paralelo con talleres de otros 17 paises más y cada estudio tendrá paises-pareja de trabajo.
Los invitamos a saber más sobre el proyecto ADU, También a explorar el blog y echar un vistazo en el calendario, Programa y Tareas. El botón “file” será nuestra herramienta para compartir información. El botón “Add new post” será nuestra herramienta para subir las tareas y sus trabajos en diferentes etapas del curso. (ver calendario para saber cuando hay tareas comentadas).
Deseando lo mejor para todos, entonces que comience el trabajo!.