Back to ADU2020
Back to Pilot Projects
PP1 COMMUNITY BUILDINGS
PP2 SOCIAL HOUSING
PP3 URBAN GROWTH AND SPRAWL
The Pentagon has been alienated from its identity, it’s hard to feel oneself at home in the metropolis’ beating heart.
But can an architect restore – let alone create – a home? If we look up the origins of this rather vague term, one can perceive a fundamental differ- ence between the mental and the material aspect of living man has made throughout history. The Greeks spoke about hestia, the religious midpoint of a dwelling, and oikos, the house as a structure. In German one translates the former as heimat, which doesn’t only mean home, but also the relation- ship of man towards a certain space. Henceforth an architect couldn’t be able to build a home, since it doesn’t concern something material.
Or can he? We divided the manifestation of the concept of home into three aspects: memory, that what one remembers as well as what one has been taught, identity, how one is or appears to be as an individual, and ter- ritory, the space one relates oneself to. Maybe we can’t influence home per se, but we can manipulate these manifestations.
The first brings us to the historical context of the site: rather than a revival of functions, we restored some iconic images, through the use of certain seemingly classical typologies like a courtyard, a gallery and a grand café. The second aspect concerns local (building) traditions: instead of thwarting an old habit, we reinterpreted the typical non-urban typology of housing.
For territory we formulated a solution against the privatisation and seg- regation in society.
These 3 aspects of home mainly focus on personal individual qualities but a fourth important component of being home is feeling part of a so- cial network. In our individualistic society this is a quality one has to re- establish and emphasise without losing the luxury of personal space. We introduced the concept of ‘hoodhouses’ as a communal space for a number of families to help them to create their own neighbourhood. By using this tool we give attention to a good gradual transition between public and private space.
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.
Group2 Guatemala – Final Proposal for the Social Housing Pilot Project
In this video transmit initial idea of a Master Plan, which develops a type of social housing, this is aimed at people living in insecure areas and informal settlements in Guatemala City.