Flexible Housing:

Modularity and free plan

A solution to monotony of nowadays living and
low quality standardized constructions

Niccolò Brandini - Préparation à la thèse

25/07/2016

2
 Niccolò Brandini - Préparation à la thèse Joint Master of Architecture - Professeur:
Philippe Bonhôte - Assistante: Blanca Vellés 25/07/2016

Index

I - Flexibility - Why?

1 - Introduction

1.1 - Features

1.2 - Uniqueness

2 - Disadvantages of Flexibility?

3 - Modernism and flexibility

 Case study 1: Weissenhofsiedlung

4
4 - Participatory design

Case study 2: Funktionsneutrale Räume

5 - Technology

Case study 3: Next 21

6 - Financial

7 - An opportunity for the future

II - Flexibility - How?

8 - Oppose obsolescence

9 - “Heavy” and “Light”

Case study 4: Überbauung Hellmut-

strasse

Case study 5: Montereau

Case study 6: Maison Loucheur

10 - Technology

Case study 7: Adelaide Road Estate

5
Case study 8: Diagoon Houses

Case study 9: Cala Domus

Case study 10: Quinta Monroy

11 - Scales

Case study 11: Habitat 67

 12 - Big Scale

Case study 12: Ville Radieuse

Case study 13: The Free University of

Berlin

13 - Small Scale

Case study 14: USM modular furniture

14 - Prototypes

Case study 15: MIMA House

Case study 16: Rotor House

III - Conclusion

7
 I - Flexibility - Why?

1 exible house can be defined as “a house

9 9
that at the design stage is conceived to change
over its lifetime in both terms of social use and
Introduction construction.”

In the first definition flexibility has already giv- en

Flexible housing is the topic of this research so it
might be useful to try to give a small defi- nition
of what a “flexible house” is. After a lot time
spent in researches and on the books I came to
the conclusion that we can’t give a unique and
alway accepted definition of it, I will try anyway to
state my explanation:
the possibility to be linked to other terms and
topic such as “construction” and “social” but a
flexible house is more than that since it is also
strictly linked to topics like “economic”
d “environment”. Starting with the first two
ms we can say that every construction and
ery house have a certain degree of flexibility
ch can be de- termined in two different ways
The first one is the ability for adaptability, or the
be able to fit multiple and different social uses.
The second can be find in the opportunity for
flexibility, or the possibility to change physical- ly.
It is clear that the possibility for a common use
space to be flexible socially and physically is
important, so it come spontaneously the ques-
tion: why the possibility to be flexible has nev- er
been fully accepted and in many cases also
opposed?
.1
Features
how to achieve a good, not expensive,
stomizable private living space that fits ev-
body’s needs and tastes in order to let us- ers
ely express their personality and indi-
uality? A space to be truly customizable
ould have a series of attributes:

10
The reason can be found in the short term
economics which lead the real estate market: the
general tendency is to design and build estates
that fits a specific type of household at a specific
point in time. 11
1) Flexible: ​The ultimate goal of a completely
Many argues that flexibility costs money but customiz- able space is of course the flexibility in
both form and function. Nowadays once the
many others think that the initial cost of achiev-
ing flexibility is more economically valued in space
a is built is really difficult (if not impossible)
long term situation thanks to the users’ higher to redefine its form and/or its function
appreciation of the house, a minor inhabitant
fluctuation, and more in general because th e
house is more responsive to the needs of the
users and of the market.

In this way we can say that this feature is par-

Temporary: ​Needs change, families change,
ticularly important for the social house sector,
tes change and of course evolve. To be stuck
where both lodgers and landlords are given he a orig- inal configuration while the world
much wider choice, which normally is almost non
und and people are changing is against our
existent in this particular sector. mary purpose: evolving in order to survive and
ameliorate or kind. That’s is the reason why
s, sciences, architecture, cities and every
other humans product are different from the past about architecture illustrative is the exampleof
ages. Evolution and temporary solutions are the company such as IKEA and AUTODESK that
key to success. have launched application that allow custom- ers
to take decision about the configuration of the
inner space of their house.
12
3) Reversible: ​Once a choice is made we
should be always able to come back to the
previous state. Not always in fact choices are
right or immutable in the time and the
reversibility of the process is an important
Modular: ​Which is the best constructive
attribute of the customizable architecture.
thod to ap- ply in order to achieve a perfect
stomization of the living space is maybe the
st difficult issue of the process. Modularity can
p us in this way since the nature of a modular
stem allow us to fit many possible solutions in
e basic system.
4) Individual: ​Architecture as always been the
perfect com- promise between individual needs,
construc- tive limits and economical advantage.
Until now only rich people have had the
possibility to take decisions in the design process
thanks to their financial means. Nowadays, 14
however, due to highly standardizing society 6) Fast: ​The perfect customizable space as
people’s need for expressing their individuality is been al- ready described ad “flexible”,
in- creasing exponentially. This need for individ- “temporary” and “reversible”. Anyway without a
uality as been translated by many companies in “fast” changing all these three adjectives are
the creation of products lines that have as useless since changes in the living space should
follow as fast as possible the changes of users’
13 needs. A gap between the changing of the
needs/ functions and the spatial configuration
objective the satisfaction of the client though the
expression of the individual’s choices. Mobile should be as short as possible.
phones can be customized thanks to
interchangeable covers, car’s interiors can be
chosen in advance, advertising always re-
member us that the product we are buying re-
7) Easy: ​The easiness of the process is
flects our needs and our personality. Speaking
course one of the most important points. As
for rapidity easiness allows people to adapt their
own liv- ing space when a change in their life
occurs. Nobody is willing to change the
parameters of a system if the befits of the new
configuration are smaller than the energy and
time spent in the process itself.
15
16
1.2
8) Affordable: ​The changes in the layout should
of course respect the principle of cheapness.
Nobody is willing to make changes in the spatial
and functional setting of a dwelling if the process
is extremely expensive.
Uniqueness
 queness and consumer disposi- tions. They
nd out that personal need for uniqueness is
ctly related to “consumers” desires for scarce,
“Flexibility” and “modularity” are two concept that ovative, and custom- ized products. We can
can be applied to architectural objects, in the derstand that ma-
same way “customization” can be thought as the
translation of these two concept in the
18
sociological, psychological, human sector.
jority of customers want to communicate their
uniqueness to others members of their group
buying and owning products that aren’t owned by
many people.

Also Tian, Bearden and Hunter (2001) are of the

17 same advice since they define a consum- er’s
Why is customization so important for some- need for uniqueness as “the trait of pur- suing
one? Why it can be positive for everyone? Which
differentness relative to others through the
are the process that rules our need for acquisition, utilization, and disposition of
(self)uniqueness and individuality and thus consumer goods for the purpose of develop- ing
encourage us to differentiate ourself from theand enhancing one’s self-image and social
mass and customize our belongings? image”. Tian goes further and explains how
consum- ers try to achieve uniqueness. They
All these questions are at the center of psy-
can:
chological and anthropological studies and in
particular way of all the branches that explore 1) “Make a creative choices counter con- formity
consumer behavior. Owning a house or a living by seeking social differentness from most others
space (not every- body as the money to for a but making selections that are likely to be
house) that reflect our uniqueness is not far considered good choices by these
away from other ty- pologies of consumerism: a ers”
home is in fact an object that is subordinate to
psychology’s laws. Because of that we can
consider Lynn and Harris studies (1997) about t at the same time they can also
the “Need for Uniqueness and Consumer
Behavior” “Make unpopular choices counter con- formity,
ecting and using products and brands that
In their study the two authors try to discuss how viate from group norms and thus risk social
consumers use goods and services in order to approval that consumers withstand in order to
distinguish themselves from others, which are ablish their different- ness from others”
the relationship between attributed need for
And in the end consumers can yder (1992) teach us how people’s posses-

3) “Avoid similarities since the possession that 20

become common among others is not useful, so sions communicate uniqueness. He discuss- es
they have to move away from the norm and how rare and hard to find or to customize a
re-establish their difference.” products “provide a vehicle for establishing ones
specialness when the need for unique- ness is
Now that we have clear that consumers tend to activated”. Two reasons are given by Snyder for
pursue uniqueness we should focus on how our need to be somewhat different from others
even thanks to our possessions (that as we see
before are like and extension of our body). The
19 first is because our society “rewards people who
objects and possessions can help people to are different but not to- tally different (as in
achieve the “status” they want. deviant)”. Secondly, we all want to in some way
perceive that we are separable from “the
While studying need for uniqueness, Snyder andmasses”. We do not like feeling that we are
Fromkin (1980) found out that people de- identical to everyone else.
fine themselves in terms of their possessions
and what these possessions communicate to
others.

Beik (1988) believes that the objects we own

influence our identities and also express our
identities to others. He also says that inten-
tionally or unintentionally we regard our pos-
sessions as parts of ourselves. We can so
comprehend that the image that we have of ee plan, adaptability and flexibility have been
ourselves is not limited to our body but also topic of many architectural initiatives,
internal processes, ideas, experiences, plac- es sertations, thoughts and experiments for the
and more in general to things to which we feel st part of the 20th century. Flexibility had and
attached. To conclude: possessions affect the s many supporters as opponents. The
extended self because these objects are a part ponents often criticize flexibility as an
of the creation, enhancement and pres- ervation usements for bored architects, a myth diffi-
of a sense of identity. “Possessions help us at all t to achieve or even a “boring neutrality” for
ages to know who we are” se who are not able or not willing to take a
 1
2 decision in matter of style, space and more in
general design.

Disadvantages It’s true that in many cases the different at- tempt
to achieve flexibility have been relegat- ed to the
of Flexibility? experimental one-time project, more often a
prototype than a real project.

During all the past century the detractors

212
have been countless. We can paraphrase the
words of James Stirling which in opposition to
the numerous flexible projects in his activity
years was sick of the boring and meaningless
faceless flexibility.
 22

3
Modernism
and
flexibility
If Stirling was openly against flexibility it is true
that only few years before the Modernist
Movement had a complete different idea about
the topic. Some of the major modernist architects
openly supported the “flexible” ideology. Let’s
just think about the all the research about the
different and new kind of habitations, with the
man and his need at the center of the design
process. Comes to the mind the experimental
period at the beginning of

23
the 20th century when architects were actively
questioning the “old” way of living and wanted toLet’s take the case of the apartment block in
find a new approach to the building, and more in Weis- senhofsiedlung designed by Mies van der
particular about the house, thinking about it like
Rohe in 1927.
something that can adapt and change overtime,
fitting the wishes of the tenants.
Weissenhofsiedlung Case study
- Ludwig Mies van der Rohe ​1
Stuttgart - Germany - 1927
1.1 - Weissenhofsiedlung, site plan
24

Case study​1
Architect:
Location:
Year:
Work Type:
Context:
Type of Building:
Number of units:
Strategy:
In this project, well known to all architecture students, the German-American architect
stated is thoughts about the delicate relation- ship between architecture and time.
He thought that human made artifacts, archi- Mies van der Rohe
tecture and buildings are usually conceived
Stuttgart, Germany
without thinking at their future and , more im- portant, at the users’ future. Since the life
of 1927
a building can be long compared to the initial
New building
intentions of the designer, of the users and of the constructors, he wanted that the
functions Urban periphery
for which the building was designed in the first Apartment house place were not fixed
and everlasting.

24
Light form
25
Case study ​1In
​ this case the use of the free

plan and more in ​ particular of the wide structural

grid helped him to achieve a great degree of
flexibility and customization. With just two
load-bearing col- umns in the interior of the units
he managed to eliminate from the inside
unnecessary walls, leaving the possibility to use
the interior space in a more open way. Another
special feature of the space is that all the
services are arranged around a single core.

Mies was so keen to test the new possibilities

resulting from this new layout that he want- ed
others architects to define the plans of the “raw”
and unfinished building, leaving them the
possibility to work totally freely: on the ground
floor we can find a two living rooms
1.2 - Floor plan evolution through years

26
 1.3 - Facade

27

Case study​1
Case study ​1apartments
​ designed by Lilly

Reich, on the first

​ floor of another unit we can
find an apart- ment for a childless couple
designed by Franz Schuster. These are just two
examples of the different typologies that can be
found in the project. Other expedients, more
technological- ly such as sliding partitions for the
bedrooms and ateliers can be found at the first
floor.
28

1.4 - Floor plan with and without internal configuration

29

Case study​1
As we have seen in the first case study thanks to
the frame construction technique and the
disposition of the services in a single core, Mies
managed to create a space which layout can be
changed and rearranged according to the future
inhabitants at very contained cost.
the last chapter we have seen how flexibility
n be achieved by increasing the architect’s
wer and control over the design process and
future. Another way of achieving flexi- bility
n be found, on the contrary, in the re- duction
he architect’s control.

decreasing the designer’s role and impor-

ce in the decisional process, and at the

4
Some argues that this kind of Modernist way of
30

thinking is not really sincere and that the idea of

flexibility can be seen as the symptoms of the
super ego of the architect: usually the ar- chitect
Participatory design
job is over when the building has been
completed and when the tenants take posses-
sion of their property, with flexibility though the
architects is still projecting his control into the
future of both the building and the occupants.

31
 same time increasing the design power of the ers’ needs and the building technique meet at
users, we can conceive flexibility as the means recise time, what happens when a new user
with which obtain people’s identifica- tion in an e possession of the house? What if the
environment that truly belongs to them and thatelling that was perfectly thought and designed
can be truly appropriated. If users are actively it the needs of the first user, is now totally
taking decisions in the de- sign process, the suitable for the needs of the second tenant?
result of the project won’t be a preconditioned n we think about this possibility as the Achil-
architectural space but a pri- vate space that willheel of the participatory design?
fit and fulfill the occupants
needs and expectations.
32
Because if flexibility is truly about users taking The question is licit and that’s why the ideas of
control of their environments after the reloca- flexibility​, and ​participatory design ​are in-
tion, it is also true that it can be about user’s complete or useless without the concept of
control over the design stage, which can be seen multi-usability.​
as the first step of their new life in their new
house.

But if the participation is the place where the

 33
Funktionsneutrale Case study
Räume - Walter Stamm ​2
Winterthur - Switzerland - 1987
2.1 - Floor plan
34

Case study​2
Architect:
Location:
Year:
Work Type:
Context:
Type of Building:
Number of units:
Strategy:
In this study case the Austrian architect Walter Stamm introduce the concept of
“multi-usabil- ity”. For this competition the project scheme is developed around the idea
of the future oc- cupation of the house by a second user which replace the original one.
 Walter Stamm
The maximum flexibility is here achieved
Winterthur, Switzerland
thanks to the neat division between the “heavy” zones (services, technical equipments)
and 1987
the “light areas which don’t have a specific
Competition
function but can be bedrooms, living rooms, atelier... Urban
Apartment house
1 or 2
Light use
35

The multi-usability is here understood as a

project design where the walls are no longer
intended as internal partitions but more as
furniture. Furniture can be moved and rear-
ranged to please the occupants, in the same way
removing or adding a wall in Stamm’s design
does not requires heavy or intrusive works.

The plan is clean and the architect’s de- sign and

intentions are only understandable thanks to the
few, small, punctual load-bear- ing elements
between the two main walls. The rhythm given
by this few elements only sug- gest a spacial grid
divided by module of 60, 90 or 150 cm which
allows the tenants a wide
Case study ​2

36
range of possibilities for the further appropria-
tion of the free space. The staircase and the
equipments are also contained in the central
zone.

The flexibility is here also achieved trough the

 possibility of subdivision of the main house into possible to divide the house in two dwellings of
different apartments. The smallest sur- face is 185 m​2 ​and 245 m​2 ​or even in 4 units of the same
the one of the studio apartment of 34 m​2​, it’s also
size.

2.2 - Floors plan

37

Case study​2
obtain flexibility the clarity of the plan is also

5
portant: a neat distinction between those
ments that are fixed and those that are open
change and variation is strongly
ommended. Services are one of those
ments which
Technology
38
38
need to be upgraded more often to fight the
As we have seen a certain logic in the dispo- obsolescence of the building, a solution which
sition of the basic house elements in the plan allows this upgrading with the less disruption is
helps the flexibility of the original configura- tion. in fact the most welcome. The constructional
 principle that fits the best all these demands is “support” or the base building is differentiated
this theory of “Supports“ developed by the Dutchfrom the “infill” or the
architect John Hab- raken. In this theory the

39 Support
​ and Infill Scheme by John Habraken

interior of the residential construction. This dif-

ferentiation between the support structure and
the inner core allows alteration and changing
only in one sector, in this way the main struc-
ture, the most expensive and long lasting, is
preserved, while the most perishable can be
easily replaced or uprated. The Habraken the-
ory gave birth to a new approach to modular and
flexible architecture that is now known as “Open
Building”: the guideline of this move- ment can
be summarized in:
 • the use of modern construction techniques
• the use of prefabricated elements
• the separation between the base building and
the infill subsystems
• facility in assembly and disassembling both the
support and the infill
40

Support and Infill

41
Next Case study
21 - Osaka Gas and SHU-KO-SHA architects ​3
Osaka - Japan - 1993
3.1 - Exterior view
42
 Case study​3
Architect:
Location:
Year:
Work Type:
Context:
Type of Building:
Number of units:
Strategy:
SHU-KO-SHA architects
The residential complex of NEXT21 is an ex-
Osaka, Japan
ample of participative design and modular/ flexible architecture. The building respects
the 1993
ideas of Habraken and the guidelines of the
New Building
Open Building movement.
Urban

Apartment flat ​18

Heavy technology
43

The goal of the architects was to create a

building able to respect the residents needs, to
do so the approach to construction is based on
the modular system and the differentiation
between the support and the infill: the long-life
elements such as the common structure (col-
umns, beams and floors) and the short-life of the
private dwellings (partition walls, services,
technological systems) which as we have seen
can be rearranged and replaced without
interfering with the integrity of the support sys-
tem.
Case study ​3
 3.2 - Services location and prefabricated modules
assembly

44

Case study​3

We can clearly see this kind of differentiation in

the aesthetic code of the building, from the
exterior views it’s clear the distinction between
the prefabricated/modular white support struc-
ture and the darker infill exterior partitions. The
great complexity and intuition of this build- ing
method lie in the modularity of every com-
ponents, from the outer structure, to the walls
that can be replaced and moved anywhere
thanks to the extremely versatile assembly
system.

Even the systems are easily accessible and

replaceable since they are located in raised
floors or suspended ceilings.

3.3 - Floor plans

45

3.4 - Transformation of a unit into two separate dwellings

46
Case study ​3
3.5 - Details of the raised floors with the technical
services

47

Case study​3
xibility), but if we think about the long period

6
Financial

The last research area of flexible housing is the

financial one. The common sense tells us that
flexibility and modularity are more expensive on
the short term because of the biggest effort in the
de- signing process and because of the quantity
of technology used to achieve the desired re- sult
(especially to obtain a certain degree of
 we can say that flexibility is economically con-
venient because we can more easily limit the
obsolescence of the systems and technical in-
stallations. Although not so many rigorous
studies have been done to study the subject and
the data at our disposal is still very little.

Anyway all the qualitative research show that

48

if technological systems, services strategies and

a good spatial principles are used the buildings
under analysis seem to last longer. They will also
be less expensive in the long term because the
refurbishment cost and the frequency of the
maintenance will be substan- tially less
expensive.

49
 in fact when people experience a changing in
their life or personal circumstances just aban-
don their house and move in the next one. The
second main cause can be the program- matic
obsolescence and inflexibility of the ma- jority of
the contemporary housing assets. This might be
due to the excessive demand over supply in the
house marketplace (espe- cially the private
sector), which determines the
If all the arguments we have outlined are con- raordinary rapidity with which the property is
vincing and show the upsides of flexibility it’s d and bought, relieving in this way the
clear that flexible houses have not yet con- velopers and constructors to increase the
quered the housing market. There are few cause ality and to innovate. Their main goal is to sell
to this situation, the first can be found in the idea property, built in the most economic way, as
that housing, like ev- ery other good sold, bought t as possible.
or exchanged in nowadays marketplace is a
perishable good. Houses are seen as a ce in nowadays market the room’s num- ber
disposable commodity, more important than the total surface or even

7 the size of each room, the houses tend to be

signed as small as possible just to meet the
ndard imposed by the law. This means that
only the quality of the space is extremely low
An opportunity that even any further pos- sible change in the
use layout is impossi- ble due to the cheap
for the future nstruction techniques (the internal partitions
load-bearing, the systems are fitted in the
ls and they are extremely difficult to be
ovated)

51
But maybe the most chocking thought is that the
private housing sector has been built on the
principles of obsolescence and inflexibility. If the
house is inflexible this means that when the
occupant needs will change, and even- tually
they will, he will have no choice but to leave his
50 house since it doesn’t comply with his desires.
 This will keep the housing market in a permanent
met, he will so stay longer in his house and won’t
state of huge demand and of high prices. move out of it. But this scenario would cause a
huge decrease in the demand and so a drop of
the prices... on which developers and builders
All of this won’t happen if flexibility were ap-
base their gains!
plied: the occupant will find that thanks to cus-
tomization and flexibility all his needs are be- ing
The solution in this case is only one and it’s to
show that flexibility and customization add value
to the property and so developers can ask for
more, increasing of a little the price of the
building.

52
 53

II - Flexibility - How?
 54
xible house:

exible house can be defined as “a house

55
that at the design stage is conceived to change
over its lifetime in both terms of social use and
construction.”
In the first section of this research I have tried to
outline why flexibility is important on the ba- sis This definition is on purpose very wide since in it
of a social, economic, and environmental facts. sits the possibility to intend flexibility as the
In this second part I would love to high- light how opportunity to change layout both before and
flexibility is achieved. Before starting it might be after the occupation. If we try to push a little bit
useful remember just one time the definition of further the interpretation we can also
say that flexibility allows the possibility of in-
stallation of new technical equipment or to
completely change the use and destination of the
building. Starting with a so ample definition it’s
clear that flexibility can be achieved in many
different ways, it’s then correct trying to define
some categories of how flexibility can be
achieved.

But before concentrating on the definitions it

might be useful talk about basic methods with
which it’s possible to achieve useful alterations in
the initial layout and so to obtain flexibility

56

As we have seen the biggest obstacle to flex-

ibility is its opposite: rigidity. Rigidity in the
building sector can be identified as obsoles-
cence can be avoided in three simple ways:
57
• Reducing the load-bearing partitions (es- further
pecially the interior ones) and more in gen- eral • Thinking about the installation of services and
avoiding all the layouts and building techniques technical installation in an easily ac- cessible
which exclude the possibility of way to be sure that in the future when they will

8
need a refurbishment the works wont be
excessively heavy and de- structive.
• Avoiding the strict functionalism, for exam- ple
designing small rooms which can be accessed or
used only in one way.
Oppose obsolescence
On the practical side the flexibility on private
individual houses can obtained through a se- ries
of principles:
 • Spatially: ​as we have already seen there is Onea other set of features that allows flexibil- ity
strict correlation between the amount of space can be found in the typical design of the
and flexibility, especially there is an important commercial offices. These building are almost
association between the always designed without knowing the future
amount of undefined/low specification space owner, this means that the basic “support” needs
and the degree of flexibility that it’s possible to be adaptable to every future occu- pants and
to get from a project. Let’s think for one also to fits his needs and demands.
moment at the borderline situation of the “loft” Plan: ​The office is the classic example of
in which the almost totality of the space is pport” and “infill” structure. The external
undefined. ucture is the static and inflexible part of the
• Construction: ​obviously there is a link be- lding, while the inner core, the “in- fill” can
tween the building technique and flexibility, we ange accordingly to the will of the owner. In
already talked about the importance of an plan we can also find the presence of the
accessible technological system for ex- ample. er core, a zone where vertical circulation and
The systems should be placed in a separate most part of the services are placed.
zone, and not integrated into the masonry. Once tween the inner core and the outer structure
the system, which are the most perishable part of space is indeterminate. It can be filled with
a building, need to be changed or upgraded the vable partitions such as cubicles.
property own- er won’t be forced to call in Services: ​all the services are carefully or-
anybody else than the electrician or the plumber. nized to allow future flexibility, upgrad- ing and
If in- stead the systems are placed into the walls anges in the office layout. The vertical services
or in the floor he will be forced to hire also the ch as ducts and pipes are placed into
carpenter to demolish the walls and the cessible cavity walls. The wiring are into the
sed floors or false ceiling.
58
tiles to complete the job which in this way will
be much more expensive and intrusive 59
• Design: ​the most simple but often forgot- ten All these principles have been used in the design
design schemes are fundamental to get and construction of the “Immeubles Lods” by
flexibility. For example the good dispo- sition of Jean-Philippe Rameau. Here the of- fice building
the staircases, the entrance and the services technology and planning princi- ples are used to
cores can allow future flexible scenarios. In the achieve maximum flexibility in the housing
end the most important design key feature is complex
avoiding load bearing partitions in the interior of
the house.
 It is now time to develop a classification of
methods by which flexibility may be achieved in
Using this five principles (three taken from the
private house and two from the office building)housing. We can classify flexible houses in two
makes the difference between a conservative macro categories, the first divides the building by
design and a flexible design. “use”, the second by “technology”.

A view
A detail of the assembly system, is visible the prefabri- cated floor and ceiling. ​
over the site

60
“Use” ​refers to the way that the design affects
the way the house is occupied, and more in
general refers to flexibility in plan.

“Technology” ​refers to building issues, espe-

cially technical solution with which all the ser-
vices are installed in the construction and in the
way they affect or facilitate flexibility.
Every category is subdivided in other two sub-
cathegorie: heavy and light.

61

Light refers to planning which allows certain

degree of indeterminacy: this allows users to
adapt the plan accordingly to their need and will,
in this case the architect works in the
background. Heavy is used to describe typol- 62
ogies of flexibility in which the design is used in a time and his presence and work are more in the
more specifically ad determined way. In this way foreground.
is the architects who fix certain rules,
determining how spaces can be used over
To be more specific we can also add that light

9 use demands more space while the heavy ap-

proach is generally used where the space at the
architect disposal is less and the different rooms
have to be multi-functional.

“Heavy” and “Light”

Light Use:

The light use category is strictly linked to the

changing conditions and needs of the tenants.
Often the occupation and destination of the
rooms are open to interpretation by different
users groups. The indeterminacy of the light use
plans is its strong point. Usually the approach is
the one in which the architect provide a
physically fixed, but social- ly flexible layout.
Otherwise the strategy is to provide the
occupants a raw space (like in the loft case) that
can be divided and appropriat- ed accordingly to
the need of the inhabitants. It’s true however that
a simply raw space is not always enough to
determine a flexible space, in this case the
designer has to fix at least some foundation such
as the position of the entrance, the services and
the circulation.

63
Überbauung Case study
Hellmutstrasse - ADP Architektur und Planung ​4
Zürich - Switzerland - 1991
4.1 - Exterior view 4.2 - Interior view
64

Case study​4
Architect:
Location:
Year:
Work Type:
Context:
Type of Building:
Number of units:
Strategy:
The indeterminacy of the light use in the plan definition is used in the 1991 Zürich
project by ADP in the best possible way. The projects was conceived by the housing
 cooperative, the architects and the future tenants which helped in the design process.
Another suc- ADP Architektur
cessful case of participatory design which had
Zürich, Switzerland
as goal the construction of a communal living facility. 1991
New building
The project plan is divided in three main zones. In the first one at the top we can find a
City center
series of room divided by load bearing walls, Apartment Flat
the room use is not assigned and the occu-
34
pants have also the possibility to add further partitions. Below the first zone we can find
a Light use
service zone: here the indeterminacy is al-
65
Case study ​4

most total since the spaces can be used as

bathrooms or kitchens. The last zone contains
what usually are kitchens and living rooms,
however this space can be totally closed and
became a self-catering apartment. Under this
last zone there are the external staircases and
the balcony which are shared for access at the
floors by the tenants.

The strong point of this project is the possi- bility

of almost infinite apartment rearranging solution.
In the picture 4.3 we can understand that simply
closing few opening in the parti- tions the size
and shape of the apartments in the floor will
change drastically offering the tenants a huge
palette of living solutions.

66
4.3 - Possible layout configurations
4.4 - Typical floor plan, at the center the services zone

67

Case study​4
Case study rville - France - 1971
​ - External view
55.1
Montereau - Les Frères Arsène-Henry
68​

Case study​5
Architect:
Location:
Year:
Work Type:
Context:
Type of Building:
Number of units:
Strategy:
The building 10-storey high designed by Les Frères Arsène-Henry in the 1971 is one of
the first example of participative design. The construction technique has many common
 point with the one of the free plan office: the long spawn concrete floors allow to free the
Les Frères Arsène-Henry
plan from any vertical load bearing elements
Surville, France
(there are no pillars in the interior). The only two fixed elements are the central inner
core 1971
for the staircase and the elevator, and on the
New building
inside of the four living unit there is a service core of 0,9 by 1.8 meters. Suburban
Apartment Flat
All the units are dimensioned over a module
37
of 900mm. The different elements and rooms can be shaped accordingly to the module
and Light use
its multiple: the barrooms (900 and 1800)
69
Case study ​5

5.2 - Plan before internal subdivision

70
the bedrooms (1800, 2700 and 3600), living
 rooms (2700, 3600, 4500).

The architects studied and designed ten dif-

ferent base typologies from which the future
tenants could choose their house’s inner plan,
however when the design process really be- gun
the tenants themselves took the decision related
to their dwelling. The only rule they had to
respect was the 900mm module. In the end none
of the architects plans were used and over 40
apartments no one had the same plan. The
technology used in the project to assem- ble the
inner partitions is hollow core chipboard 35cm
wide and screws, which made the “instal- lation”
process extremely rapid and economic.

4.3 - Section 4.4 - Different unit’s interior configuration

71

Case study​5
 72
Heavy Use:

While the notion of light use is linked to the

notion of participative design, allowing to the
tenants to make decision in both the design
phase and later in their life in the building, the
idea of heavy use is more connected to the
architect’s desire to maintain control over the
entire building’s life. The heavy use techniques
are so linked to the architect’s will to maintain
control that it is strictly linked to many of the most
important name in the 20t century architecture
panora- ma. There are extremely few examples
of hard use projects, they mostly are confined to
demon- strations and one-time projects. They
are almost always combined with a strong theo-
retical base then with a strong interest in the
user’s experience.
 73
Maison Case study
Loucheur - Le Corbusier ​6
France - 1928/29
6.1 - Plans: on the left the night configuration, on the right the day configuration
74

Case study​6
Architect:
Location:
Year:
Work Type:
Context:
Type of Building:
Number of units:
Strategy:
Le Corbusier’s Maison Loucher was designed by the architect in the 1929 because the
French government needed a great number of prefabricated and cheap houses. The
project however was never built
Le Corbusier
Le Corbusier was active on the research of
France
new typologies and in flexibility since the first years of his career, we remember the
other 1928/29
experimental modular housing project: mai-
Public competition
son Dom-ino.
Suburban
In this case study the building is spitted in two Semi detached separate dwelling, the
symmetry ax is a stone

2
wall which also is one of the few elements that touch the ground. The habitation is only
Heavy use
46 m2. Here the heavy flexibility strategy is
75
achieved thanks to folding beds, sliding timber
walls and partition separating that separates the
kitchen from the living room/bedroom. The only
fix element is the central bathroom core.
Accordingly to Le Corbusier’s calculation the
different day and night settings are the equiv-
alent of almost 71 m2 into the raw surface of 46
m2.

The house was designed to accommodate a

family with up to 4 children and was supposed to
be transported from the factory on a truck and to
be assembled in only few days.
Case study ​6

6.2 - Section

76
 6.3 - Axonometric projection

77

Case study​6
portant part of the architectural pro- cess and
he resulting project: the architect

0
Technology
We have already seen how we can achieve
flexibility through the attention to future uses
during the plan design phase. At the same time
it’s also true that flexibility can be ob- tained
through technology.

In the “Heavy” use for example technology is an

 pports and load bearing partitions.

he ​Technology ​case, as if for ​Use ​we can

de the approach in two sub categories.

79
Heavy Technology:

Heavy technology are those technologies

developed purposely with the objective of
achieving flexibility and that are central in the
design phase and features of the dwelling. There
78 are really few examples of project which make
doesn’t leave so much control to the (future) use of heavy technologies systems but in the
tenants by developing a plan type that can be most part of them the emphasis of the design
modified, but instead determining the use for has shifted from the social implica- tions to the
each space and then installing in it techno- construction and technical ones. More in general
logical devices. The role of this devices and we can say that the focus of the project is the
technical solution itself and its display (rather
technical solutions is to provide different us- age
solutions to the tenants: folding beds can than achieving an efficient space quality through
disappear and leave place for a dining table, technology).
sliding doors and vertical partitions can sepa-
rate and unite different areas. The theoretical base of the heavy technology
designs can be found in John Habraken’s re-
If it’s true that certain projects are strictly linked searches. In his book ​“Supports: an alterna- tive
and overawed by technology, it’s also true that a to mass housing” (​ published in 1961) the
correct use of technology doesn’t preclude the tch architect highlights the main character-
possibility to approach the proj- ect accordingly cs of an adaptable house: the separation
to the “Use” approach. Let’s think for example ween “Support”, or the base building, and
about the use of technolog- ical solutions such fill” (as already seen in chapter n. I.5). In his
as long spawn structures. Already at the ny writings Habraken harshly criticizes the
beginning of the 20th century the use of concrete ss housing buildings stating that the low
columns and structural frames allowed Mies van ality/higher profits had as consequences to
der Rohe and Le Corbusier to achieve the “free duces the dwelling to a consumer article and
plan”. Or as we have seen with other case dweller to consumer”.​ His responses to this
studies the use of metal frames and light but long d of low level architecture are basi- cally two,
floors allowed architects to eliminate internal technical one (support and in- fill) of which
we already talked in the NEXT 21 building in
Osaka - case study 3 - and the social one
consisting in the possibility of in- habitants to
have a meaningful participative role in the design
process. But maybe his big- gest intuition is
about the possibility to link the social program to
the technical solution and to have them always
coupled since the technol- ogy solution should
be just a mean to achieve

80
a valuable social condition and not a simple
display of technical skill. One of the most known
and accomplished project that use heavy
technology solutions and participative design is
the Adelaide Road Estate.