You are on page 1of 50

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

The statement of the exercise is part of the two central research topics on which the project is based: Blue Green Future Proof Cities & Neighbourhoods. The site where the project is located is in a suburb of Antwerp, close to an old industrial area. The block limits to one side with the district of Marbaix, linked to the old slaughterhouse activity. Quiet neighborhood, narrow streets and little traffic, pretty traditional houses. On the other hand, a lot of infrastructure that are right next to the plot. Nowadays this neighborhood that was once home for workers, hosts many different population profiles, in a very different economic and social conditions. Another problem we observed was the need to create certain spaces of transition from public to private. In the Belgian traditional houses, the transition from the most public to the most private, from the street to the houses, is produced in the door, giving directly onto the street, where people continually pass. You can also see through the windows what owners do from the street downstairs. Therefore, the fundamental decision of the project was to create intermediate spaces. Spaces from less to more privacy that would mark the transition from the street to home. The project aims to create an elevated plaza, separated from the ground floor, which is completely public, and connect both sides of the plot, the two main blocks, row houses and blocks, which are totally different, and therefore, people that live there will be also.

This elevated plaza also allows residents to enjoy a quiet location and magnificent views over Loebrok connecting single family with blocks, which also contain community uses such as gym, reading spaces... This way, generating the feeling of community, of trust, which is necessary for a pleasant and happy life, is achieved. The square connects the three residential areas: A co-housing block, designed for young students and people who share a few locations, but also have private spaces. Located directly beside the ground floor with a large co-working space in which a person can rent a workspace, shared with others at a lower price. The other block consists of various habitable modules, all them passing-through to enjoy the benefits of North-South orientation, linked by various common spaces. On the other side the row houses, modulated to be easily adaptable if the owners cannot use the stairs or dont need so much space. Some of them are directly connected with commercial on ground floor, creating other typology or home-workshop, in which the owner can work close to home, while taking care of their children or their parents. Closing the plot, it is proposed to construct a cultural center, a public building that meets the needs of district of public spaces and teaching, dominated by a tower that acts as a landmark at the corner, welcoming visitors that arrive from other places, and noting the position of the space on the city skyline.

THE DESIGN

THE DESIGN

There is a plan made by the City of Antwerp to rehabilitate all this space along the canal definitely moving the residues of industry which are scattered, for connecting the neighborhood, blocked by the buildings, to the channel, and the new entertainment area. On the other hand, precisely those buildings, which have acted as a barrier over the years, have managed to preserve the neighborhood from traffic, noise and massive urban development. Nowadays this neighborhood that was once home for workers, hosts many different population profiles, in a very different economic and social conditions. There is a large percentage of immigration, which has favored multiculturalism that is seen in the neighborhood, and rejuvenation of it, making the average age of the area to be very low. But on the other hand, there are a large percentage of unemployed, and the average incomes of the neighborhood are quite low. We quickly detect that besides the few remaining factories scattered, there are many companies and workplaces, shops or other stores. This may be one of the causes of unemployment, but also makes that the people who live here have to make long journeys to reach their workplace, forcing also them to take the car, polluting and wasting a lot of time each day. When we visited the plot we realized that there are a large number of parks and green spaces within a five minute walk, but in the neighborhood there are no such green areas, parks, or places where people gather to interact, so the street itself becomes extemporaneously in those places where children play, and the neighbors talking. In addition, there is a lack of schools, cultural buildings, public buildings One of the first objectives of the statement is to face the reality that the city of Antwerp grows, and therefore, the traditional extensive model for edification, in low height cannot accommodate as many people as would like to. It is therefore necessary to achieve a higher density, but this shouldnt mean losing space and quality of life. The group proposal, in terms of urban development, poses to generate with buildings this limit that has existed up to now and which has preserved the district of traffic, noise and people. But at the same time it must be a permeable limit, allowing local residents to cross to reach Loebrokdok. The proposal, therefore, must answer two different urban scales: the big city and large streets that exist in Slachthuislaan, and the small scale of Marbaix and its terraced houses.

The statement of the exercise is part of the two central research topics on which the project is based: Blue Green Future Proof Cities & Neighbourhoods. After much reading and researching, thinking and designing, we agree with the team beyond the purely environmental and economic issue, the project aims to develop new ways of living, new models of neighborhood, city, that would make the life of citizens better. This has endless ways to get it, therefore, the first objective of the exercise was to go several times to the place, to visit, to see at different times of the day, reading, researching, see what really happens in the neighborhood, in houses, in people, after facades. Once analyzed and understood personality, problems, and the specific needs of a rich and multicultural neighborhood like this, we were able to propose solutions to them. The site where the project is located is in a suburb of Antwerp, close to an old industrial area. The block limited to one side with the district of Marbaix, linked to the old slaughterhouse activity. Quiet neighborhood, narrow streets and little traffic, pretty traditional houses. On the other hand, a lot of infrastructure that are right next to the plot. The warehouses of the old slaughterhouse, now abandoned, hosting various activities, though they dont seem to have a clear future. Old industries, some of which still operate today, scattered throughout the years. The ring highway around the city of Antwerp, which has been controversial in recent years, going elevated on the neighborhood quite nearby. Similarly, a large area of railway infrastructure, roads, sidewalks and esplanades in which once emptied, loaded and repaired trains carrying industrial goods. The industry of Antwerp, the largest in Europe until Rotterdam was developed, fully linked to the channel framework, which has been changing its location over the years, has also influenced in a very clear way the urban development of all city. Loebrokdok, as so many channels that eventually close, wait in a state of abandonment that interventions such as MAS in the center, take advantage of its strategic location for the development of a pleasant leisure area, in relation to water.

THE DESIGN
In addition, we decided to cede some space land for the neighborhood, so that after the boundary that separates the neighborhood of water, could be a public space, like a park or square became the meeting point to which everyone around the neighborhood could go. The ground floor is completely permeable and public, with shops, offices, daycare and other public spaces for people. Another problem we observed was the need to create certain spaces of transition from public to private. In the Belgian traditional houses, the transition from the most public to the most private, from the street to the houses, is produced in the door, giving directly onto the street, where people continually pass. You can also see through the windows what owners do from the street downstairs. Therefore, the fundamental decision of the project was to create intermediate spaces. Spaces from less to more privacy that would mark the transition from the street to home. The project aims to create an elevated plaza, separated from the ground floor, which is completely public, and connect both sides of the plot, the two main blocks, row houses and blocks, which are totally different, and therefore, people that live there will be also. This elevated plaza also allows residents to enjoy a quiet location and magnificent views over Loebrok connecting single family with blocks, which also contain community uses such as gym, reading spaces... This way, generating the feeling of community, of trust, which is necessary for a pleasant and happy life, is achieved. The square connects the three residential areas: A co-housing block, designed for young students and people who share a few locations, but also have private spaces. Located directly beside the ground floor with a large co-working space in which a person can rent a workspace, shared with others at a lower price.

The other block consists of various habitable modules, all them passing-through to enjoy the benefits of North-South orientation, linked by various common spaces. On the other side the row houses, modulated to be easily adaptable if the owners cannot use the stairs or dont need so much space. Some of them are directly connected with commercial on ground floor, creating other typology or home-workshop, in which the owner can work close to home, while taking care of their children or their parents. Closing the plot, it is proposed to construct a cultural center, a public building that meets the needs of district of public spaces and teaching, dominated by a tower that acts as a landmark at the corner, welcoming visitors that arrive from other places, and noting the position of the space on the city skyline.

TEAMWORK

TEAMWORK

TEAMWORK

TEAMWORK

TEAMWORK

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Fotos maqueta implantacion

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Fotos maqueta implantacion

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Emplazamiento 500

Roof Plan 1/1000

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Ground Floor 1/750

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

First Floor 1/750

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Second Floor 1/750

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Third Floor 1/750

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Fourth Floor 1/750

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Fifth Floor 1/750

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Ground Floor 1/300

First Floor 1/300

Second Floor 1/300

ROW HOUSING MODULES

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

First Floor 1/300

Second Floor 1/300

Third Floor 1/300

Fourth Floor 1/300

STUDENTS CO-HOUSING MODULES

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Ground Floor 1/300

CO-WORKING MODULES

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Second Floor 1/300

Third Floor 1/300

Fourth Floor 1/300

PASSING-THROUGH COMM. MODULES

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

Section 1 1/200

Section 2 1/200

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

North Elevation

Long. Section

South Elevation

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL

DESIGN PROCESS

DESIGN PROCESS
From the beginning the main ideas have stayed. Creating a public space, giving a part of the plot for the neighbourhood. At the starting I was still too conditioned by the Belgian typology. I decided to keep the gym, but soon I realized that it was quite difficult to dialogue with it, and its planned to demolish it in a few years. The structure was also too limited to reuse it for a higher building.

I detected soon the different conditions of front and back streets. The scale is also a crucial issue. The section starts to be developed. The answer to the environment is one of the key factors. The courtyard starts opening to the back I still wanted to keep the row houses in the south faade.

I searched for new possibilities, trying to open a gap in the main blocks ground floor, the door to the district a covered space where developing plays, or where children could play, according to the weather in Belgium. I got stacked, so I tried new strategies,. After a while I realized that the logic of the previous strategy was stronger than the new schemes, so I rethought it again, trying to find the more useful principles.

DESIGN PROCESS
After a few weeks, I found a possible answer, that starts looking really alike the final proposal. It was necessary to give an answer to both faades, while giving some free space to the Marbaix neighbourhood.

The total permeability of ground floor is already there. The front side would be more public, while the back side could be something more quiet and safe.

I still had some problems with accesses, how to solve the connection between both sides, and what was it going to happen with the space in between, its functions. The south faade was asking for a public function, a building in the corner, with a higher scale. The landmark which attracted people who didnt know the place.

I got back to the team principles, the need of the district, and that together with the conditions of each faade helped me t o start developing the ways of living: co-housing, co-working, adaptable housing I tried to connect it with the idea of community spaces, and started subdividing in privacy filters the different steps from the street to home.

THEORETICAL APPROACH

TA_UNIVERSAL DESIGN: Accesibility


One of the objectives that Ive been thinking of when I was designing was, according to the studio, accesibility. For providing a Future Proof Neighbourrhood its really important, as I develop in detail in the Research Questions, to make sure that no one is excluded from this way of living. It is not difficult to create a barrier-free building if you think from the beginning of the problems, rather than adapting once it is made . Ive checked the project, through the Universal Design App, to confirm that the building fulfills with the accesibility goals. For visually impaired users, one of the challenges is how to reach. The path will be marked with a pavement differentiation. The access through open spaces, suck as the park, is always made through a path, which guides the way, and doesnt let to get lost. One the person is inside, specially in public buildings, there is a control, reception or information point where a blind person will be oriented. Inner rhythms are very prominent, and the entrances are clearly differentiated from the rest of the building, so they are readily identifiable and easy to learn. The stairs will be always built with handrail, according to the measures,. about the module designed for disabled people, the stoves will be placed aligned to prevent a blind or a person in a wheelchair can burn. VISUAL ACCESIBILITY

REACH

2 1

51 5 1 5

1 3

51
3 1 5 15

ENTER

4 4 5

USE

TA
The building is also checked for a person using wheelchair. Not only the disabled module block, but the whole proposal is thought avoiding creating architectural barriers. Each level change that appears in the design is saved by a ramp that fulfills the measures and slopes for accessibility. Not only for wheelchairs, but for elderly people and those for which climbing a stair represents a big effort. Thereby it is also achieved that handicapped people do not have to go to a different access than normal. The same occurs in the auditorium, where the access can be produced through a central level, handicapped dont have to sit in the front row Near each main staircase there is at least one elevator that also connects the different floors. The inner dimensions, specially in the disabled module are designed to move to move without problems in a wheelchair.

WHEELCHAIR ACCESIBILITY

REACH

2 1+2

1+2 1+2 1+2 1+2 1+2 4 1+2 6

ENTER

35

USE

TA
The building is located next to different public transport stops, making possible to people to arrive, but also letting old people get to the city center without needing to drive. Its also important for avoiding them to get lost. The access to the building is produced through a park, in which they can sit if they are tired after a walk, or they can sit on sunny days to also enjoy the company of other people. Thats really important to avoid loneliness, specially in elderly people. As for visually disabled people, differentiating clearly the entrances is important for old people to remember the way home and dont get lost. Its necessary to avoid small steps that are not easily seen, or other surfaces where they can slip and fall. The bathrooms are adapted for making their daily routines easier.

AGEING

REACH

2 2

ENTER

USE

TA
Its a challenge to make a building safe and usable for children. The accesses and measures should be adapted for them. The whole project strategy is thought to have a public safe park on ground floor that gives access to the kindergarten, where children can play far from the dangers of streets and traffic. The community spaces also provide areas where they can play in winter, protected from rainwater, and also being easily controlled by their parents, providing a feeling of trust and peace.

CHILDREN

REACH

1 1 3 1 1 1

ENTER

USE

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

RQ1_PUBLIC-PRIVATE: Transition and Meeting Spaces


One of the aspects that caught my eye when I came to Belgium was the fact that while I walked in my street I could see all my neighbours in their living rooms in ground floor, eating, watching TV Other houses, especially those which have been divided in several flats, and that are usually for students even have their bedrooms facing to the street. The contradiction appears when I see that they also try as much as possible to have a private back yard where enjoying in their intimacy. As Ive checked in my first three months in Flanders, Flemish housing closely resembles to the Netherlands. However, the mentality, the way of living the intimacy is completely different, in so far as Dutch live without curtains, and they show openly how their lives are, and Flemish always need to use some elements to try to create a filter. Belgian traditional houses are characterized by a narrow and tall faade (around 5 meters wide, and 2-3 stores high), and a deep plan towards a back private garden at the backyard. Its difficult to find the balance, because users need as much light as possible from the outside, but at the same time, they need to feel comfortable, with intimacy for them and their families.
Pianta Grande di Roma Giambattista Nolli Public Flowing - Bobic

Belgian Traditional Housing Privacy System

Residential Blocks + Shops+ Offices (Spain)

Ancient Rome Domus Scheme

Dutch Housing (Amsterdam)

Its also a question of way of living and urban planning. In Spain, where I come from, the urban configuration in cities, with bigger buildings and a higher density, and consequently, it lets having shops, offices or workshops on ground floors, and dwellings in floors over them. Its the medieval scheme of housing, where craftsmen had their ateliers in the low level of their own houses, combining working and living in the same plot. That way, it allows having the most public function in ground floor, and the working spaces closer to the living units, keeping at the same time the intimacy of the most private spaces. Its missed that feeling of activity, interaction between street and building. The limits of the blocks are very clearly marked by the faades. The street level should be more permeable, as the Pianta Grande di Roma drawn by Nolli. Its a question of transition spaces. There is a need of transition from the most public (street) to the most private (houses), that now is achieved through height or deepness (higher floors or facing to the back yard). In United Kingdom, or the United States, there is usually a front garden in between the streets and the houses and the street, that generate that transition process. Its also common in the British and American culture those typologies in which when its not possible to have that front garden (London or New York), the ground floor rises three or four steps, what is known as Bel-Etage. In that manner, people walk on the street under the window, and dont see what the inhabitants are doing inside. The stairway usually also represents that transition space that separate the building from the street. But it also represents a problem in terms of accessibility. Row houses always mean a problem for disabled or old people. Ancient cultures, as the Roman structured their homes around a patio that served to structure the house and at the same time to create a filter between the street and the several rooms. Other cultures as the Japanese and other Asians, use arcaded spaces as transition and hosting element to the visitor.

Tassel House Victor Horta (Brussels)

Kensington Houses (London)

Residential Suburb (Pennsylvania,USA)

Residential Suburb (Pennsylvania,USA)

Brooklyn Street (New York,USA)

RQ1
Nowadays, small and narrow streets become those transition spaces, where people meet and children play near their homes. Some of those streets, as Marbaixstraat near our plot, have been even adapted, designing the urban trace to diminish the traffic speed, as well as creating safer spaces to play, sit or meet. People need of those meeting spaces, as squares or parks, that open the streets, and interconnect the monotonous street system. However, this idea doesnt work in main or bigger streets, where there is continuous traffic, and people open their doors directly to noisy streets. There is a lack of identity in those spaces. There is a real need of those transition spaces that filter the privacy. Community gardens or other places where meeting can happen, and that would create a dynamic interaction between neighbours, generating at the same time a certain feeling of control and trust. Its more comfortable to live in neighbourhoods where people can rely on others, where everybody knows and where there is a real feeling of community. Its really uncomfortable to open the house door and see somebody that you dont know. Thats maybe the reason why people dont know themselves in their own street. The problem gets solved by gradations in the levels of intimacy. Subdividing the neighbourhoods into smaller communities that share a common entrance, garden, or yard, instead of groups of individual private units, creates a feeling of trust, identification and fellowship with the people you live next to. Those meeting or community spaces should act as transition areas.
Streets Around the Plot, Antwerp

Schemes of relation between the stret and the buildings

Marbaixstraat, Antwerp

IIn some years, city centers will grow, the population will be higher, and well need a higher density to answer to the cities demand. Its difficult to vary an urban fabric and a typology so deeply rooted as the Belgian, but its possible to adapt it to get better living spaces. From my point of view, the backyards are not being used with all their potential. As the traditional medieval block system, each block was divided into narrow plots to the faade (the faades were the most expensive areas), and also conditioned by the constructive limitations of the wooden beams (from 6 to 8 meters long each). The central yard of the block was divided into private plots which belong to each house. In that space there is not any interaction between neighbours, each one owns their piece of land, and use it for private activities. It would be much more enriching for providing a better quality of life if the system was reversed, and those yards would become at the same time the common meeting space where children could play and develop different activities, and that transition space needed to create privacy, and avoid connecting the houses directly to the street. They could balance the lack of green areas, becoming parks that would improve the spatial and the air quality. Those inner community spaces could also contain some useful elements, such as working spaces, schools, libraries, or other facilities that would make life easier.

Casa de las Flores, Zuazo (Madrid)

Kiefhoek, Oud (Rotterdam)

Siedlung Halen, Atelier5 (Berna)

Lexington Terraces, Wright (Chicago)

RQ1
There are some successful examples in Gent, that Ive visited, in which this has happened. Backyards have become public space for residents or for other people who come to visit the neightbourhood and meet and interact there. At the same time, it represents a quiet area, that acts as a filter between the more noisy and crowded streets to the houses, and makes the place spatially and qualitatively richer. The decision of turning the scheme of privacy, giving private space for the enjoyment of the entire community has ticked these projects and may represent a way forward in the development of existing urban areas in Flanders.
Housing in Pannestraat, Gent In this project the limits of the plot to the main streets have been built, with different typologies, according to the scale of it, generating a buffer, behind which a new row of houses has been created. The different streets and small squares that connect those buildings are only accessible for pedestrians and parking area for residents. The main public square is a quiet space that faces the private back gardens from which its possible to access the houses. This strategy, that has improved the quality of the whole district could be used in other blocks in the whole Flanders. DEC 100 Houses, Brussels Urban Platform This project is again an example of conversion of a traditional closed block into a more interesting scheme. In this case, the ground floor is occupied by a center for elderly, who can enjoy the yard the sunny days, while children play next to them. That interaction also generates a kind of social control. The act of entering from the back yard to the houses also represents a filter of quietness and privacy from the street.

Housing Hollainhof, Gent Neutelings Architects The central yard is a semi-public area developed as a garden that connects and gives access to different conditioned housing typologies (row housing, apartments, duplex) where people of different social classes meet and interact.

The building itself doesnt work in terms of privacy for the Belgian mentality, but the urban strategy is brilliant. It also includes a kindergarten where not only the residents, but the whole district can bring their children to.

RQ1

From the beginning in our proposal as team, we detected that need of creating a sequence from the street to the houses. Its also necessary to give public space to the rear street and neighborhood. In my design, I took the decision to raise the building, leaving the ground floor for shops, offices, daycare, and other uses for public, so that the building was completely permeable, full of activity and movement. At the same time, the problem of privacy on ground floor gets solved. The possibility of hosting small work or shopping spaces provides two benefits to the neighbourhood. It maxes the district functionally richer, therefore people dont have to go shopping by car to a big supermarket far from there, keeping the character of the Marbaix as a car-free district. It also allows creating jobs close to all the neighborhood, some of those premises even connected directly to the house, as an atelier. That makes life easier for people who live around and dont have to spend much time daily to go to their workplace. At the same time, the economy of the district gets improved, attracting people from other places and making it more socially mixed. In that way, you can also generate two facades with noise conditions, privacy and activity, completely different. Those two parts, one in the back street and another facing the canal get connected through a elevated park that belongs to the community, and where very different people will meet, interact and enjoy.

Saved the first privacy level, the row houses are designed to be visually closed on access level, making an inner courtyard that filters the intimacy and also provides light to the spaces in the middle of the building. A new typology appears: the artists atelier, in which the ground floor is a space for exhibition, connected vertically to the workshop floor, the first. The house for the artist is in the second floor, over it. In the students module, in which young people co-live, sharing some facilities, such as kitchen, dining room, relax and conversation spaces, computers room, library They can choose between being in group, or staying alone in their own room.

BIBLIOGRAPHY -BOBIC M., Between the Edges. -PREZ IGUALADA J., Manzanas bloques y casas -SCHEERLINCK K., Depth Configurations

RQ2_ACCESIBILITY & ADAPTABILITY


One of the problems that I realized when I got to which is going to be our house during this year, is accessibility. In my design, I wanted to face this problem from the beginning. The traditional Belgian row houses are usually narrow and deep, and structured on several floors one over the others, normally connected through a narrow and steep stairs, which means a problem. It also easy to find, as its been treated in the RQ1, talking about privacy, a kind of typology where the ground floor is lifted around a meter from the street to stand over the people who walk on the street and get more intimacy. But it implies that there is also a small staircase to get to the ground floor, whats known as Bel-Etage. That makes those houses absolutely inaccessible for disabled people. Nowadays, falling down the stairs represents the leading cause of home accidents in Belgian homes. From my experience these months, Ive checked that this fact is a reality. Its also difficult to carry big and heavy objects through them, and at the end, theyre not functional. This problem gets much bigger when the user of the house is a person with a disability, or an old person with mobility problems.

New Belgian Family House Plans: it keeps having the same accessibility problem than the traditional ones

It means that when a family ages, the children usually go out of home, leaving free space that is not going to be used, and when the couple gets older, and gradually lose movement capability, they cannot use the upper levels. They need to adapt the house to live only on the ground floor, wasting the space of the upper floors. Nowadays, the new houses that continue being developed as row housing, usually are designed to leave whats called a survival module. They are built from the beginning with the minimum facilities that the users will need if they get old and cant use the stairs anymore, such as a bathroom, a kitchen and a bedroom. In other cases, its not built from the beginning, but the installations and ducts are created from the start, so its easier to adapt it if itd be necessary. Anyway thats a weak solution, because in a few years the demand for housing in cities will be much higher than the current, so the use of the space will need to be more effective. Its also important to provide neighbourhoods in which future generations can continue living in their houses without having to move due to physical problems or aging, or spending such a so big amount of money into works to adapt it that makes more profitable to move to a new one. The goal that we need to achieve is to provide typologies of housing in which we can supply an access without architectonical barriers, for wheelchair or movement disabled users, also ensuring that the ramps do not exceed the maximum slope, while generating community spaces without losing privacy or spatial quality. Its necessary to think in new ways of living, new typologies which could adapt to the existing urban tissue, increasing the current density, and improving the quality of life of the neighbourhoods. That means thinking in block constructions, with communication cores with lifts or ramps, which justify the economic invest that those mechanic elements involve. As the statement of the project demands, the objective is researching of ways of living and typologies which would provide comfortable, functional and accessible housing for the future generations.
+2 +3 Disabled Accessible Areas and Elevators Location

+1

RQ2
One of the typologies that I propose for the back street, facing the traditional Belgian buildings from Marbaix district is an adaptable rowhousing, combined with work spaces. Its possible to keep the row housing structure, with individual staircases in each, because for economic reasons, its not worth to build an elevator for each house. But in that case, we need to design in advance, assuming from the beginning that the users will get older, and they wont be able to use the upper levels. Therefore, the houses should be designed to be easily adapted, divided in several apartments with a minimum intervention, always keeping the privacy of both houses. It may be interesting, creating situations such as a building in which old people can rent the upper floor to young families or students that could look after them. That feeling of community, control, and protection is important to provide a trustful place to live. Families grow, and it would also let the children live next to their parents in case they get married, keeping their own space, independent one to the other, but connected. It could also be connected to the premises under the house, becoming, as the traditional craftsmen houses, a typology where the workspace is directly connected to the house, letting the families leave the children or old people who need constant care at home alone. If one day, they retire, the house can be disconnected from the atelier, becoming and independent premise.

Adaptable housing + working These modular row housing are designed to be divided in two apartments, with a minimum intervention. Some of them are also connected to the ground floor, the ateliers, linking life and work spaces, and making life easier to the inhabitants. 0 Adaptable housing These modular row housing are designed to be combined to one next to it, creating a bigger typology, making it more versatile, and letting host a wider range of users. +1 0 +1

+1

+1

+1 Adaptable Row Housing Modules

Module for disabled people These modules are designed for old people, disabled, or anybody with mobility problems. It fulfills the necessary minimum dimensions for making life easier for handicapped users, that can also move from one of the other modules once they get old or need it. The division is very clear: living area (cooking area, eating area, sitting area and terrace) and sleeping and sanitary area.

The other building that I propose, facing the Loebrokdok asks for a bigger scale. Its formed by two blocks that get connected to the other side by the elevated community platform, which is also accessible for disabled.
Again, the idea of those blocks was generating good quality housing, which would face both orientations (North and South), while avoiding creating an elevator for each two houses per floor (which is economically non-viable), and respecting the privacy of the owners, while creating transition spaces to promote interaction. Its formed by several modules, connected through those interaction spaces along which its possible to walk along the whole building, with just two elevators cores, promoting the horizontal circulation that lets handicapped people enjoy the building as the rest of people who live there. There is also a module designed for disabled, according to accessibility measures, to which any resident of that building could move in case it would be necessary. The other block, which is formed by co-housing modules, search for the objective of being adapted with a minimum intervention to be used by different users: individual or a couple.

Module for students (Cohousing) These modules are designed for students or young professionals, that share a certain amount of facilities, in groups not bigger than 10 people, but that also have the chance of staying on their own private space if they want to. The module should lets combine and adapt easily to have a single or double bedroom, to let have both couples and singles, according to the needs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY -SENADIS,Universal Design Chilean National Service for Disabled -UPV Politechnic University of Valencia Universal Accesibility and Design for All: Architecture and Urban Planning

RQ3_FUNCTIONAL NEIGHBOURHOODS: Mixing


The neighbourhood where the plot is placed is characterized, as other residential districts in Belgium, by total dominance of housing, and a lack of other services, that tend to group in certain areas of the city, creating a kind of specialized urban tissues, instead of a balanced mixture. In Marbaix neighbourhood, there is a marked lack of workspaces. The fact that the streets are exclusively residential makes it a quiet neighborhood with little traffic, but at the same time it means that people, as the graphs show, have to spend a quite big amount of time on going each day to their workplaces. It also represents the need of driving each time they need to buy groceries, to accompany their children to school, or just to visit the doctor. All these displacements generate traffic, noise and pollution, and take away valuable time to the inhabitants. There are some big supermarket, and big industries, but with low diversity. There is as well a lack of basic services required, such as childcare, a hospital or ambulatory and cultural spaces for the neighborhood. As we could verify in our several visits to the site, its necessary to create more public space for meeting, where children can play safe, and where other public activities can be developed. We detected that the big sport and green areas which are at a distance of five minutes on foot around, are not enough for a district as Marbaix. For providing a future proof neighbourhood, its necessary to solve this problem, to also create a healthier, richer and safer environment where children and future generations can grow and live. For us, Green Blue City and Future Proof Neighbourhood means providing several facilities that make life easier, generating a more mixed environment.
Unit dHabitation Le Corbusier The Units dHabitation represented at the first quarter of the 20th century a revolutionary idea. Consist of vertical cities of social housing, containing other functions, making it self-sufficient in many ways. People live in a kind of community, where they share common spaces, such as kindergarten, gym, swimming pool, terrace Robin Hood Gardens Smithsons Peter and Allison Smithson proposed another model of vertical city, where the acceses to the houses are done through an outer corridor that they called the steets in the air. Theyre spaces where children can play, and where interaction happens. Both massive buildings also generate a buffer, embracing a quiet park. Models of Co-Housing The typology that I propose could be related to the extensive and the compact strategy. Until now there are not many examples of compact cohousing, in vertical. Most of them are designed for detached or terraced houses. The most important element of them are the common spaces, which are usually connecting them.

Current work spaces + commercial + industrial analysis

Green areas: distances + users

During the development of the design, Ive been researching several examples of utopic proposals that posed the way of living, as big communities equipped with all the facilities needed to dont depend on other places. They seem interesting to me, because in spite of the individuality of the Belgian traditional housing, those utopic ideas promote the social mixing, and a certain feeling of trust and fellowship. Vertical cities could be a good example of it. In terms of scale, its important to densify the area, and those models propose a more compact way of living, achieving a better land use. There is also a high level of immigration in the district. It runs the risk of becoming a neighborhood in which only people from one nationality live. Its necessary to create integration, relation, and that can be got by establishing communities of people of different ages, backgrounds and conditions. But on the other hand, they sometimes become too isolated from the outside world, and because of their huge size, they lose the human scale. Its crucial to avoid creating dehumanized spaces. The communities, especially those who share some facilities (co-housing) shouldnt be formed by groups bigger than 10 or 12 people. But the goal is achieving the sensation that those smaller groups, also participate of more common spaces that belong to the whole community, and where they can also meet other people, probably more different that the ones they live with. When I studied the co-housing models, which each day more and more people join, I realized that most of them are thought for extended growth and low rise. They usually establish their communities among nature, there are not many integrated in the city. They work almost as religious communities, closed in themselves, but with a very positive goal: living as a big family, or group of friends, sharing some spaces. The beguinagesin Belgium could be studied as a kind of multifunctional community integrated in the city, organized around a courtyard that connects the different elements.
DISPERSED GROUPED EXTENSIVE COMPACT Kinds of Common Spaces

RQ3
From the beginning of the design I detected the need of connecting the neighbourhood to the Loebrokdok, a future possible area of development that will become an entertainment zone. That connection will activate also the Marbaix district, specially the back street of the plot, which is now a little static. The strategy of raising the house to get privacy, leaving the commercial premises, ateliers and the kindergarten still promotes this idea further. The fact of having very different conditions at each side of the plot lets giving various answers to the same elements. The back street, at the west, is quiet and narrow and with not much traffic. In that street its possible to propose ateliers, studios, or small offices or shops, not as public as the others, directly related to the Marbaix district. Its calmness would make it perfect for having the entrance to the kindergarten, directly related to the park, to which people from the streets around can get walking, and where at the afternoons and evenings people can meet and children can play. The interaction between the both sides of the plot happens. The north blocks, facing Slauchthuislaan and Loebrokdok, will become a busier space in some years. It calls for a more public function, hosting on its ground floor bigger shops and commercial spaces, as well as a coworking space.

Green areas: distances + users

At the same time, the corner at which the two main streets intersect, claims hosting a public building, with community functions, with a taller scale which would also become a landmark, welcoming the visitors who get to this place. A very permeable space that shows whats happening inside, and also the activity of the courtyard. The district needs of a cultural building. There are not many libraries, learning spaces around. In a neighbourhood with a so high percentage of immigration, this place would become a site for the integration, where different people would meet with a same objective: learning. According to the level of privacy of the users, its important to divide the common areas in two: those who are public, designed for the neighbourhood or to other potential visitors that would come to this place, enriching the district and making it socially more complete. On the other hand, there is a need of community spaces, meeting areas which belong to the people who live there, where their children can play, having them controlled all the time. This differentiation is emphasized by the two marked levels.

GROUND FLOOR USES: -Co-working (GREEN) -Kindergarten (RED) -Cultural Center (BROWN) -Ateliers/studios (BLUE) -Commercial premises (YELLOW)

BIBLIOGRAPHY -CIAM 4, The Functional City -Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, Creating CoHousing

REFERENCES

TEEPLE ARCHITECTS RICHMOND HOUSING COOPERATIVE -Shared spaces -Different typologies -Vertical co-housing -Interesting ventilation system

WE ARCHITECTS AALANDSGADE -Open courtyard -Public functions -Private-public transition _Cozy meeting space

112 VIVIENDAS MODULABLES BASILIO TOBAS -Modulating spaces -Free interior configuration -Multiple possibilities uses

COHOUSING PRINCIPLES AARHUS -Modulation -Connections -Common spaces

JAVIER SANTAMARA CONCURSO DE VIVIENDA PROTEGIDA -Conctinuous community spaces linking house modules. -All passing through houses -Combining inner and outer spaces in the plot

DEC 100 HOUSES URBAN PLATFORM -Open courtyard -Public functions -Private-public transition _Cozy meeting space -Trust feeling -Use of ground floor as daycare -Activity

VPO HOUSING IN MIERES ZIGZAG ARQUITECTOS -Open courtyard -Private-public transition _Cozy meeting space -Trust feeling -Activity -Accesibility -Passing through houses

BUILDING IN LONDON STREET, BCN COLL Y LECLERC ARCHITECTS -Innovative way to design a block -Connection of two pieces: housing + kindergarten -How to solve an entrance in corner

124 HOUSING UNITS IN RENNES LAN ARCHITECTURE -Elevated community park -Urban platform -Scale

CONCURSO DE VIVIENDAS EN CRDOBA ER ARQUITECTOS -Spatial complexity -Meeting spaces -Relation inside-outside -Combination of different housing modules

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS PETER AND ALLISON SMITHSON -Massive housing - density -Vertical cities -Buffer -Inner safe park -Community meeting spaces

UNIT DHABITATION MARSEILLE LE CORBUSIER


-Modulation -Inner connections -Vertical cities -Density -Common facilities -Housing modules (passing through)