See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263964185

LOW COST HOUSING Rational design methods and living space quality:
typology and construction

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 7,950

1 author:

Luisa Otti
Università Degli Studi Roma Tre
7 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Luisa Otti on 30 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

  
 
 
 
 
ZEMCH 2012 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE  
PROCEEDINGS 
 

 
 

Edited By  

Masa Noguchi 

The Glasgow School of Art, United Kingdom 

 
  

CREDITS  

Conference Co‐chairs 
Antonio Frattari, University of Trento 
Colin Ripley, Ryerson University  
Tim Sharpe, Glasgow School of Art 

Session Chairs  
Daniel Aelenei, Universidade Nova de Lisboa  
John Onyango, University of Miami  
Chihiro Shimizu, Reitaku University  
Masa Noguchi, Glasgow School of Art 
Geoffrey Thün, University of Michigan  
Poorang Piroozfar, University of Brighton 
Liangxiu Han, Manchester Metropolitan University 
Laura Aelenei, National Energy and Geology Laboratory (LNEG) 
Hasim Altan, University of Sheffield 
Jun Tae Kim, Kongju National University 
Harald Røstvik, Bergen School of Architecture  
Kathy Velikov, University of Michigan  
Mitsuhiro Udagawa, Kogakuin University  
Carlos Torres Formoso, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul 
Alessandra Scognamiglio, ENEA CR Portici 

Proceedings Editor 
Masa Noguchi, Glasgow School of Art 

ZEMCH Network 

MEARU 
Mackintosh School of Architecture 
The Glasgow School of Art 
167 Renfrew Street 
Glasgow, G3 6RQ 
United Kingdom 

Tel: +44(0)1413534668 
Fax: +44(0)1413534703 
Web: www.zemch.org  

Published by ZEMCH Network 
 
Copyright © ZEMCH Network 
 
 LOW COST HOUSING
RATIONAL DESIGN METHODS AND LIVING SPACE QUALITY:
TYPOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION
Luisa Otti1
1
Università degli Studi Roma 3, Facoltà di Architettura, DIPSA - Dipartimento di Progettazione e Studio
dell’Architettura,Italy, luisa.otti@uniroma3.it

Abstract

The housing emergency is nowadays one of the main discussion topic in architecture
and urban planning for many reasons: the society transformation, the new household
idea, the unsettled job market, the global financial crisis in 2008, that has stricken in
particular young people, immigrants, young couples, elderly people, city users, “atypical”
families, in short that “grey area” of the population not “poor enough” to be in the list for a
public housing project, but not “rich enough” to buy or rent a house. In this scenario, a
large number of recent public and subsidized housing projects in Europe boasts of
catchy slogans as “social”, “sustainable” or “low cost”: due to the previous reasons and
the catchment area with a high education level and particularly sensitive to these issues,
those labels certainly contribute to increasing the building marketing value. But what
exactly those terms mean and to which step of the architectural process
(design/build/manage) could be applied is something more difficult to understand and
explain.

The research, therefore, analyses recent European public and subsidized housing
projects that used in particular the slogans “low-cost” and “innovation”: are these words
properly used and which typological and technological devices have been used to
achieve the “affordable home” goal?

The first phase of the survey proposes case studies of European low cost buildings with
innovative contents; in a second phase the most significant of them are analysed with
particular reference to typological flexibility and construction systems with a high
standardization degree; in the end the research proposes the results as “design
guidelines”, in order to provide useful tools for designing a low-cost multi-storey
residential building.

The study argues that the answer to low-cost housing is not just in technological
solutions, but is the typological and innovative design to lead choices for building
systems site-specific and really innovative.

Keywords

housing emergency, low-cost, typological innovation, technological innovation,

prefabricated systems

351
Introduction

Housing policies for the greatest number and the consequent level of dwelling supply is
still an important indicator of the social character of a society and even nowadays one of
the main themes of discussion and research in architecture and urban planning.

In Italy in the recent years, numerous studies have highlighted a growing discrepancy
between the supply and the demand in the housing market: a high percentage of the
population not only has to be content with an unwelcome type of housing, but as a result
of the low ownership rate also has to bear even higher expenses in the form of rising
rents or mortgages1.

The demographic structure of the society is becoming more complex and elusive: on the
one hand, the society transformation, the new household idea, the unsettled job market,
that turns individuals into “city users”, are all factors that define a diversified scenario; on
the other hand, the global financial crisis in 2008 has stricken in particular young people,
immigrants, young couples, elderly people, city users, “atypical” families, in short that
“grey area” of the population not “poor enough” to be in the list for a public housing
project, but not “rich enough” to buy or rent a house.

The survey on the Italian real estate market promoted by the Chamber of Deputies and
held by the VIII Commission in 20102 has highlighted the most critical aspects of the
national housing policies and has addressed some of the recent legislative decisions
regarding public and subsidized housing policies3, with the aim to give a new start to the
construction sector in this historical moment characterized by an extreme reduction in
turnover. The construction sector, in fact, to deal with this crisis period, is taking account
of the change in the demographic structure and is changing its internal rules to address
this new market demand into a new positive phase. The signs of change are still
numerous and, although in some cases niche, give the direction of the on-going process:
the reduction of the “traditional market” on one side and the “new methods” in
construction on the other side, more oriented to “low cost” and “innovation” (Cresme
2011).

This process of change, driven by the globalization dynamics, the technological

evolution, the energy and environmental issues, is also being pushed by a new approach
to the architectural design, that, rejecting the wiles of the exhibition end in itself, is
increasingly the difference in terms of quality, performance, sustainability, time and costs
and therefore competitiveness of both designers and construction companies.

Reducing, simplifying, inventing, using old and new materials: the "plainness" resulting
from the actual reduction of resources defines an architecture maybe not better but
certainly new, an avant-garde that prepares the ground for future buildings totally

1
On average Europeans spend over a fifth of their income (22.9%) on housing. The share of housing costs out of
disposable income for those at risk of poverty is almost double the overall rate (40.4%). People at risk of poverty living
alone are the ones who spend the most on housing compared to their income, while large families are the ones spending
relatively the least. (Cecodhas, 2012)
2
The Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, completed its survey on July 29, 2010, with approval of the final
document. The survey has served to bring into focus the delicate situation in which lies the real estate market and, above
all, to identify a series of concrete proposals, capable of responding to the need for a rapid end to the ongoing difficulties
and of encouraging a sector which is crucial in the construction and real estate market.
3
On the housing theme, the italian government adopted between 2008 and 2009 two different programs. The first
contained in the Financial Bill of 2008 called "National Housing Plan" (Law 133/2008). The second, called "Husing Plan"
was launched by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on March 6, 2009 with the intent to raise - in a time of crisis - a key
sector for italian economy as the construction sector.

352
sustainable, evidence of a renewed approach to the architectural project, mature for the
construction of a new world where the humanity and its needs are again the main issue4.

If on the one hand, housing policies are responsible for providing the prescriptive and
economic instruments to provide a "roof over their heads" for the needy, on the other
hand the architectural debate has to wonder about the types, the aggregation and the
technology for the construction of these dwelling, as long as they are not merely
"shelters", but structures able to properly answer to new needs expressed by the society
and inspired by sustainable issue. The requests for a radical change, then, must involve
both the design and construction process: the renewal can not prescind from the
application of energy saving devices, the application of construction methods that
minimize energy waste and maximize recycling on one side, but it has also to bring up to
date the housing types, as spacial devices capable of hosting new social behaviours.

In this scenario, a large number of recent public and subsidized housing projects in
Europe boasts of catchy slogans as “social”, “sustainable” or “low cost”: due to the
previous reasons and the catchment area with a high education level and particularly
sensitive to these issues, those labels certainly contribute to increasing the building
marketing value. But what exactly those terms mean and to which step of the
architectural process (design/build/manage) could be applied is something more difficult
to understand and explain.

The research, therefore, analyses recent European public and subsidized housing
projects that used in particular the slogans “low-cost” and “innovation”: are these words
properly used and which typological and technological devices have been used to
achieve the “affordable home” goal?

The first phase of the survey proposes case studies of European low cost buildings with
innovative contents; in a second phase the most significant of them are analysed with
particular reference to typological flexibility and construction systems with a high
standardization degree.

The research finally identifies and correlates the areas within which design housing "low-
cost and sustainable", where “sustainable” involves economics - the low cost, social -
user participation, than environmental issues - energy saving. The aim is to emphasize
the use of industrialized building systems, which guarantees a certain and certificate
energy performance within the limited financial budget imposed by the current market
conditions, together with the construction of public housing adaptable to the different
requirements expressed by the users.

Typology and construction: from the frame concept to freedom and polyvalence

Sustainability, therefore, as the sum of economic, social and environmental costs. Cost,
then, as the sum of "natural cost" (the cost of construction) and "running cost" (the cost
that increases or decreases with the variation of the needs)5. If, in fact, in the age of
post-war reconstruction, in which the contingent causes pushed the construction of
buildings identifiable with the housing urgency itself, reducing the natural cost was the
main issue, today, instead, the necessary interventions on the building existing stock for

4
This is the case of the prize “Leone d’oro” at the Biennale in Venice in 2010 given to the Barhain Pavillion, with its three
fishing huts, while the theme “People meet in architecture” developed by the curator Kazuyo Sejima was more focused on
the aesthetic phenomena.
5
The founder of the theories of value in economics, William Petty (1662), describes the cost of a product as the sum of its
cost of production (natural cost, connected to its production) and the value assigned to it by a series of contingent causes
(running cost, that increases or decreases as needs change or mode).

353
its management, maintenance and reuse, make necessary to globally rethink the
concept of "low cost", from the mere “construction cost” to the “general cost”.

The cost as the sum of construction cost, running cost and necessary expenses to
ensure the quality of buildings throughout their life cycle (Manfron 2005) and also the
social cost, resulting from the failing match of the housing supply on the market and the
demands of the new demographic structure. The reduction of this “general cost” in public
housing is, therefore, the core concept: to achieve this goal, the buildings must be
designed to meet the needs of adaptability over time of both space and facilities, giving
the right answer to the demand expressed by the current user.

While the final result of giving a real answer to the housing demand expressed by the
population belonging to that "grey area" of the society, the analysis of the current
demographic structure is the fundamental starting point for understanding the typological
needs outlined by new and different ways of living.

Two are the main points deriving from analysis and data aggregation of various
statistical and demographic surveys, useful for the “low cost housing” theme:
o the elusive contemporary household structure and the resulting distance from the
family “type” that architects consider while designing;
o the increasing contraction of the living space according to the parallel reduction of
the purchasing power.

Flexibility and changeability are, therefore, the keywords when facing with the
unpredictable in designing and building public housing, if examined together the
statistical and sociological considerations on contemporary changes in the household
structure with the aspects related to the permanence over time of a building and its life
cycle. As already noted by W. Ascher at the end of the 80’s about possible residential
patterns in relation to the demands of flexibility, “a building has a longer life than other
products, often much more than the lives of its occupants. In the field of habitat, the
problems posed by the increasing diversity are even more important since in most
European countries over 80% of the buildings in 2000 already exist and what we build
now should last until 2030-2050” (Ascher 2001). The average life span of a building is, in
fact, about 100 years and designers must face the problem of shaping a space that will
stay over the next century as the “theatre of life” for its future users.

Flexibility became a theme in western architecture when architects embraced mass

housing on the onset of the 20st century. It was the issue surrounding the “minimum
dwelling” in the 20’s and 30’s with the aim of making the most efficient use of space:
foldaway beds, sliding doors and walls enabled houses to have different arrangements
for day and night use. Le Corbusier’s plan libre and the support concept of the
Foundation for Architectural Research (SAR) are key examples of the concept of open
and transformable living space. The 60’s and 70’s brought renewed interest in flexibility,
when the housing mass production was the main topic of european housing policies:
many studies have addressed the flexibility in terms of movable partitions and
changeable internal layout, together with the growing interest in the issues of users’
participation in the design process.

Much has, thus, been said and done around the concept of flexibility and many
proposals have been developed, some of them only theoretical, others tried and then
abandoned, others borrowed from different types of buildings, though not always directly
applicable to residential projects. The analysis of several case studies, both historical
and contemporary, shows two directions always possible:

354
 o the consumer home: a type of housing project for youth, elderly, people with
disabilities, large families, that multiplies the options to answer to the diversified
needs;
o the evolutive home: a type of housing that could be changed according to the
evolving needs of the users, namely an adaptable structure.
Both these models refer to the same graduality of flexibility (Grecchi 2006):
o design flexibility, that refers to a range of compatible models or options, between
which it is possible to make a choice; this kind of flexibility enacts during the
design process through establishing an extensive repertoire of possible solutions
that meets the needs of future users;
o use flexibility, that defines the adaptation potential to the variety of needs that
housing allows in its parts, between the “everything is possible” (the free floor
plan) and spaces that should actually allow this indeterminacy;
o time flexibility, that guarantees the possibility of adjustment in time, in relation to
the evolution of the family.

When facing a project, therefore, it is necessary to identify the possible future

arrangements and levels of adaptability during the life span of the building; the notion of
flexibility comes into the design process in a precise moment influencing the choices.
According to the decisions taken during the concept phase, hence, it is usefull to define
three degrees of flexibility (Grecchi 1993): from the soft flexibility, feasible without any
increased costs by the user, to the semi-soft flexibility, that involves in the design phase
the arrangements of devices for future changes in the connection system with low
increase of the starting construction costs, to the semi-hard flexibility that foresees
variations during the use, to finally the hard flexibility with high costs when no level of
flexibility was predicted.

Flexibility, thus, is possible only when already in the design phase simple devices are
arranged for future changes, feasible through easy steps done by the users themselves;
these devices establish on one side an increase in the original construction costs, but on
the other side guarantee a reduction of the social and environmental costs in case of
future and different use of the living space. The social distress, meant as social cost,
resulting from changing house and breaking well-established neighbourly relations for a
family that changes its living needs during time, for example, is consequently limited.

Through the study of the case studies, some typological devices outlined as the most
used and with the highest level of innovation, both in space and use:

NUCLEI
ACTIVEDIBAND
SERVIZIO UNITS AND VARIATIONS CHEAP SPACE SERVICE UNITS

organized sequence of services aggregation of housing units low cost space in the central part services in segregated and
along wall system according to the needs of a deep building humid units

+ =

DESIGN FLEXIBILITY USEFLEXIBILITY TIMEFLEXIBILITY

SOFT FLEXIBILITY HARD FLEXIBILITY

Figure 1: Typological devices and degrees of flexibility

355
These typological devices on the one hand refer all to a clear floor plan layout, on the
other hand they have a wide range of application in the history of architecture. They
guarantee, according to the cases and the levels of flexibility requested, alterability, in
case of internal alterations, varying from changing the position of a door or moving or
removing a wall to revising the entire internal layout; extendibility, when enlarging the
surface area of a dwelling with or without space-wise consequences for surrounding
houses; polyvalence, when multiple uses of space without architectural or structural
modification are necessary in an continuous process. Finally, the same space could hold
different levels of freedom at the same time (Leupen 2006).

The result with the higher level of innovation in the case studies, however, is bringing up
to date these devices throughout the use of modern construction systems and the
parallel integration of energy saving principles. The cost reduction, then, includes not
only the social cost, but also the economic and environmental cost: in one word, the
“generic cost”.

If for example the “band active” is, in fact, a spatial concept date back to the 80’s and
outlined in the research “Domus domain” of Leon e Leclercq, its application in recent
projects, as the housing project of the architects Coll-Leclerc in Barcelona for 42 dwelling
in 2008 – case study 1, highlights on the one hand the possibility of increasing the depth
of the building with an improvement of the ratio surface/volume and on the other hand
the extension of the “functional band” concept to a steel frame with function of reduction
of direct sun light on the south-west façade. Band active, hence, not only for the required
internal equipment, but also as an environmental stripe for increasing the global energy
behaviour of the building. Reduction, therefore, of both the social costs due to a total
internal flexibility and the environmental cost in terms of running costs. These
applications are possible, also, thanks to a prefabricated structure, with concrete frames
parallels to the facades connected by floor slabs without in-between columns; the result
allows both a completely freedom in the internal layout with flats along 12mt façade, than
the integration of the double metallic skin hooked to the prefabricated concrete frame
with a dry construction system.

Figure 2: Case Study #1 – Coll-Leclerc, Social housing, Barcelona – Spain, 2008

In the same way, the project of the architects Aranguen&Gallegos for the EMVS in
Madrid in 2003 – case study 2, shows an extremely deep building organized along a
central stripe of services. Also in this case, the intrinsic limit of this layout is clear: all the
flats open only on one side. The restriction in the use of the liveable space, however, is
compensated by a high level of sperimentation on the internal layout, thanks to the
height of the service band higher then the internal one. In this way, it is possible to
arrange the space in different ways during the day: the walls can be retracted in day-time
and the bedrooms are transformed into living areas, hiding the beds below the central

356
spine; during the night, instead, through the subdivision with movable walls, single rooms
are created and the internal connection is along the central corridor. This high spatial
experimentation is possible, even in this case, only through the use of a frame
construction system that guarantees a high degree of standardization and low
construction cost.

Figure 3: Case Study #2 – Aranguen&Gallegos, Social housing, Madrid – Spain, 2003

A similar comparison between typological device, its updating and realization with a
precise construction system and the consequent reduction of its social and
environmental cost is possible also for the other two layout systems highlighted: in the
project done in 2008 by the Atelier Kempe Thill for a low cost housing in the Osdorp
district in Amsterdam – case study 3, for example, merging the characteristic of both a
single family house with a multi-storey housing project in a low budget design addressed
the choices to a mixed structure in concrete and steel with a reduced span of 4,80mt.
This reduction allows a 20% saving on the façade cost and the construction of a building
with a depth of 12mt. The designers realized in this way a certain amount o “cheap
space” in the middle of the volume useful for future growing of the living space and
improvements of the energetic performance of the building out of the increased ratio
surface/volume.

Figure 4: Case Study #3 – Atelier Kempe Thill, Townhouses, Amsterdam – Netherlands, 2008

It is crucial, therefore, nowadays not only rethinking the possibilities of not-finished and
not responding to formalized uses and needs living typologies, but also considering
frames open to future housing chosen by the users and that could change in their life
span, on the other hand the key is anticipating the technological and structural
possibilities of innovative and complex systems.

In this direction goes, hence, the project CTRL Space of the Piercy Conner Architects,
winner of the competition ManuBuild6 in 2009 – case study 4: the designers developed

6
The European Community sponsored the ManuBuild research in 2006 with the specific goal of investigating the issue of
open industrialization in the construction industry today. The research, which investigated some of the highlights of low

357
the project around fixed elements (services, storages, structures) and changeable ones
(materials, mezzanine, partitions), shaping the house not as a sequence of cellular
rooms, but as an aggregation of fluid spaces.

Figure 5: Case Study #4 – Piercy Conner Architects, CTRL Space, 2009

The choice of the right structural system is, therefore, the key point when flexibility is the
pivotal element in a project with “low cost and sustainable” aspects, as long as
sustainability includes economic (low cost in the construction phase due to standard
elements), social (users and their needs) and environmental issues (energy efficiency of
a building).

Different construction systems allow, thus, different degrees of flexibility and

consequently the construction of a certain type of housing: designers should focus on
the one hand on the internal layout to enable different uses of the space, on the other
hand on the permanent, the more durable component of the house that constitutes the
frame within which changes can take place (Leupen 2006). The permanent, moreover,
gains in importance when considered together with the environmental issues and the
use of industrialized elements and components is highlighted; among the elements that
compose the permanent (structure, skin, scenery, services and access), structure and
skin are in this meaning the aspects on which designers could better work to achieve
both flexibility and sustainability.

Following this approach, therefore, the research focalizes on the innovative structural
systems used in recent public housing projects, investigating the technological and
energy savings implications, along with the consequences in the quality of the living
space.

cost housing first from the principles of industrialization, has informed the content of the international design competition
sponsored by EMVS of Madrid for the formulation of a catalogue of housing projects for the public administration.

358
 BRICKS CONCRETE WOOD BRICKS MIXED

FRAME BEARING WALLS THICK WALLS

SPAN = ROOM SPAN = HOUSE SPAN = ?

A B

INDUSTRIAL“TUNING”

Figure 6: Construction systems and typologies

Assuming that each element, walls and floors, can have their own construction principle,
the structural systems can always be ascribed to two main families and their possible
combinations (Leupen & Mooij 2011):
o monolith, in the case of load-bearing façade o dividing walls and solid floors;
o skeleton, in the case of dom-ino skeleton o reticulated structures.

It is, on the one hand, obvious that each material has a clear implication on the
technological system, due to its physical characteristics; less obvious, however, on the
other hand, the connection between tectonic and typology, even more between tectonic,
typology and cost (economic, social and environmental).

Three are the possible solutions of the structural system, considering the implications on
the typology and the internal flexibility (Grecchi 2010):
o frame, with pillars along a regular modular grid;
o load-bearing walls, with structural spans coinciding with each house;
o thick walls, with sequence of elements capable of accommodating furniture and
services.
Each of these solutions allows different layout of the living space, from a total flexibility in
the case of a frame structure with no relation between spans and internal divisions, to a
flexibility feasible only inside a single living space in the case of a structure coinciding
with the division walls, to a flexibility realizable only by adding units/rooms when the
structure coincide with room walls, achieving in this way an evolutive house.

It is the case of the on-going project in Milan of Stefano Boeri Architects – case study 5,
for 11 houses for 1.000 sqm. of total surface, addressed to singles, young couples,
students, elderly, in one word that needy that can not access the market. These future
users, involved from the very beginning of the project in the definition of needs, practice
a participatory planning process within a defined range of solutions to optimize the use.
The housing is realized with the X-Lam system, composed of complex elements, such as
load-bearing walls, walls already complete with windows, curtain walls and floors, dry
assembled on site. Each single house, therefore, is composed by adding units/rooms
chosen and composed by the users, with on the one hand the benefit of the
correspondence between needs and realization, while on the other hand the building is
unchangeable due to the coincidence between structural system and room: the

359
extendibility is possible only by adding unit with consequences for the surrounding
homes and semi-private space.

This limit of the evolutive house is balanced, in this case, using the X-Lam technology:
the potential future cost for a complex transformation is compensate with the use of a
material which is natural, recyclable, quickly and dry assembled, reducing in this way the
costs connected with the production and the construction.

Figure 7: Case Study #5– Stefano Boeri, Casa Bosco, Milan - Italy, 2009

It is, therefore, the prefabrication of the structural system that makes the difference in
terms of costs (economic, environmental and social), both in case of a wood or a
concrete structure, with a frame system or a monolithic one, and even if applied not only
to the structure but also to the single components of a building.

These components, done off-site in special factories and quickly assembled in-site, in
one word the use of “modern methods of construction”, are mainly:
o panels, including ready-made walls, floors and roof, often with wiring and pluming
already inside, making construction even faster;
o modules, ready-made rooms which can be pieced together to make a whole
house or flat but used most frequently for bathrooms and kitchens.

Prefabrication in housing is not new, but problems arose over the quality of building
materials ad poor workmanship, leading to a negative public attitude towards
prefabrication; today, for these reasons, the majority of homes are still constructed using
traditional “brick and block” masonry. However, within the last few years there has been
increased use of modern methods of construction, driven by a range of factors including
demands for faster construction and skills shortages. Many of the benefits of using
prefabricated components are yet unproven or contentious, but they are in any case
referable to the different component of the “generic cost” of a building:
o economic cost, as housing could be build more quickly and with fewer defects, in
particular reducing on-site construction time up to 50% and thus reducing labour
costs;
o social cost, as there may be fewer accidents, thanks to the highly skilled labour
for precise on-site labour, and less impact on local residents during construction;
o environmental cost, as the building can be more energy efficient, may involve
less transport of materials, and produce less waste.

360
These strengths, connected to the economic benefits of mass production and
standardization already highlighted during the reconstruction after the Second World
War and stressed by the Modern Movement, are of new importance in the contemporary
historical period focused in particular on solving the problems of energy efficiency.

In this new context, energy efficiency will surely be the key concept that will open the
gates to renovated industrialization: savings and efficiency from the outset through
controlled design and manufacturing; worksite efficiencies and the savings deriving from
speedier construction; savings and efficiencies during the building’s service life as a
result of technology deployed; and even savings and efficiencies when the building is no
longer usable, preparing it for a “good death”: recycling.

All the foregoing are undoubtedly parameters of considerable significance in the new
sustainability paradigm. Open product catalogues will be needed to recover industry for
architecture: in view of the paucity of such catalogues, the few that do exist must be
modified or “tuned” as a first step toward a renovated industrialization and the
construction of a “low cost and sustainable” public housing project.

In this direction goes the investigation promoted by the competition Housing Contest,
sponsored by Federlegnoarredo in partnership with Milan Municipality, Ordine degli
Architetti, Assimpredil Ance and In/arch, and held in 2011 in Italy. The aim was to
stimulate again the exchange between architects and industry, integrating modern
methods of constructions with the new social and environmental themes. The outcome is
a catalogue of more then 100 housing buildings with a high level of industrialization and
energy saving concepts, which can be useful for those municipalities that wish to build
new public housing with a limited budget and high demands of flexibility to accommodate
different kind of users and energy savings to ensure low running costs.

One among many, the project developed by Cogefrin s.r.l. together with Renato Sarno
Group – case study 6, develops a prefabricated mixed structure in steel and concrete
that could be built in only 10 months, organized by adding modules to combine different
typologies according to the needs expresses by the users; more over, prefabricated
service units are integrated in the layout for bathrooms and kitchens; the skin of the
building, finally, shows the highest level of industrial tuning in terms of energy saving,
respecting the 30 KW/sqm/year parameter. All these aspects are guaranteed in the
limited budget of 1.080 Euro/sqm, a very low price compared to the average construction
cost in Italy of a building with the same level of performance and quality.

Figure 8: Case Study #6– Cogefrin s.r.l. Housing Contest, Milan – Italy, 2011

The different parameters considered by the jury are referable to the different aspects of
the term “cost” in the new sustainable paradigm: economic, social and environmental
sub-costs were considered both in the design phase than in the construction and running
phase.

361
Conclusions

On the one hand, therefore, there is a firm belief in industrialised building methods and
the “processability” of living, on the other hand; however, attempts have to be made to
react more closely to environmental issue.

Resisting all handed-down, preconceived notions of structure and functions, particularly

in large projects, the concern is much more the creation of the right framework for events
of life: restrictive building and conventions of use deprive us of a process, which brings
life into building, and allow us to really use them.

By being defined in a slightly less specific way, the themes of structure, construction and
environment gain more general validity, not restricted to a particular function, but open
enough to react to possible change. This is, however, not achieved by the kind of
openness that permits a totally free interchange of uses: a plurality of meaning is the
aim, not arbitrariness. “Structures for living” (Steidle 1994) is the concern of architecture
of natural gestures, put before the users. Structures for living are not simply houses, but
include all kind of structures in which various qualities of living form a part; it is a kind of
architecture in which buildings, and not building types are developed, architecture in
search of the specific within the general.

References

ASCHER W., 2001, “Guide to sustainable development and environmental policy”, Duke
University Press

BARUCCO M.A., 2010, “Social housing fra costo, qualità e sostenibilità” in “Il progetto
sostenibilie” 25/2010, Edicom, Monfalcone, pp. 76-79

CAMERA DEI DEPUTATI, VIII COMMISSIONE, 2010, “Indagine conoscitiva sul mercato
immobiliare”,<http://documenti.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stencomm/08/indag/immobilia
re/2010/0729/INTERO.pdf> retrieved on June 18, 2012

CECODHAS, 2012, “Housing Europe review”,

<http://www.housingeurope.eu/www.housingeurope.eu/uploads/file_/HER%202012%20
EN%20web2_1.pdf > retrieved on June 18, 2012

CRESME, 2011, a cura di Eliana Cancelli e Patrizia Colletta, “I driver del cambiamento
del settimo ciclo edilizio in Italia: innovare o sopravvivere?” in “ Il ruolo dell’architetto per
la città sostenibile”, Rome, pp. 38-50

GRECCHI M., 2006, “Riflessioni e proposte in merito al nuovo quadro esigenziale” in

“Nuovi modelli dell’abitare. L’evoluzione dell’edilizia residenziale di fronte alle nuove
esigenze”, Il Sole 24 Ore, Milano

GRECCHI M., CRESPI R., GRISOTTI M., 1993, “Experience and use of domestic space
over its life time span” in “International Congress: Innovative Housing”, Vancouver

LEPIK A., 2011, “Ritorno al sociale – Nuove prospettive nell’architettura del passato” in
Detail 4/2011, pp. 328-334

362
 LEUPEN B., 2006, “Frame and generic space – A study into changeable dwelling
prceeding from the permanent”, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2003, “Modern

methods of house building” in Postnote 209/2003, London

ROCCA A., 2011, “Architettura low-cost low-tech – Invenzioni e strategie di una

avanguardi a bassa risoluzione”, Sassi, Schio (VI)

RUIZ-LARREA C., PRIETO E., GOMEZ A., 2008, “Arquitectura, industria y

sostenibilidad” in Informes de la Construcciòn vol. 60, 512, Madrid, pp. 35-45

STEIDLE O., 1994, “Bewohnbare Bauten – Structures for living”, Artemis Verlags-AG,
Zurich

363

View publication stats