‭ ousing Thinking‬

H
‭Rafael Gómez-Moriana‬

I‭n comparison to a single (-family) house, or indeed any singular architectural object,‬‭housing‬
‭involves a different way of thinking. The architecture of housing has more to do with systems,‬
‭economies of scale and multiplicity. It forces us, more than with any other kind of architectural‬
‭design project, to consider space in terms of public versus private use (and the various shades of‬
‭grey in-between), spatial appropriation, flexibility, efficiency, and yes, practicality. It requires us to‬
‭think about the spaces‬‭between‬‭buildings as much as‬‭those inside, and to think about landscape‬
‭in much more subtle terms than merely “green space”. Housing is architecture at its most‬
‭humanitarian, social, and ecological, and as such at its most political, urban and complex. It is‬
‭where architecture comes closest to confronting the ecological and therefore ethical question of‬
‭how we should live; of how we should construct our habitat so that it is fair, just, and sustainable.‬
‭Housing thinking addresses the very form of everyday human life itself.‬

‭ fter all, housing is what mostly makes up the built environment. Other types of buildings might‬
A
‭be accorded more monumentality and prestige, along with bigger budgets, but the mere bulk of‬
‭housing makes it much more representative of the architecture of the city. If it weren’t for the‬
‭spatial ubiquity of dwelling, for the field condition of normalcy it establishes, other more‬
‭expressive architectural objects wouldn’t have a background to stand out against. Quantity does‬
‭indeed have a quality all its own, as has famously been said.‬

‭ et is not how we like to think about architecture, much less talk about it. Contemporary‬
Y
‭architecture culture values uniqueness, exceptionality and the well-executed detail over‬
‭standardization or systematic multiplicity. Architecture is about quality, not quantity; the latter‬
‭being negatively associated with a construction industry that is seemingly only concerned with‬
‭square meters and bottom lines; if we’re lucky, maybe some “curb appeal”.‬

I‭ndeed, housing has historically been what “ordinary builders” designed and built, with architects‬
‭exclusively handling mansions, palaces or villas as far as residential buildings are concerned.‬
‭Housing was traditionally not considered “architecture”, but “vernacular building”; rarely a subject‬
‭of treatises or theoretical reflection. This changed with the arrival of the industrial revolution, when‬
‭mass-housing became a topic of world exhibitions, competitions, and even architectural‬
‭manifestoes. There was little choice: industrialization was causing massive urban migration and‬
‭radically changing the landscapes of cities and countrysides, provoking an hour of reckoning for‬
‭the profession. An emergent architectural Modernist movement placed housing at the top of its‬
‭agenda. But despite its noble intentions, Modernist housing ended up antagonizing many with its‬
‭soulless repetitiveness and the inflexible mould it forced its inhabitants to adapt to. The period‬
‭during which architects dedicated themselves‬‭en masse‬‭to mass-housing was thus relatively‬
‭short-lived, in the end.‬

‭ ith post-modernity, and the end of the welfare state at the hands of Reagan and Thatcher,‬
W
‭housing became less important in architectural discussions again, with museums and highly‬
‭customized houses now commanding most of the attention. In the new climate of deregulation‬
‭and privatization, western cities were effectively taken over by the interests of real-estate‬
‭development corporations whose conservative and formulaic urban model promoted suburban‬
‭sprawl. As a consequence, many inner city neighbourhoods, especially in North America and‬
‭Great Britain, fell into decline during this period.‬

‭ ut more recently, the energy-intensive “American way of life” of a single-family house in the‬
B
‭‘burbs, a car for every family member over 16, and long commutes has started to fall out of reach‬
‭and out of favour among many young people, many of whom would rather‬‭not‬‭own a car and live‬
i‭n an inner city neighbourhood where almost everything can be reached on foot, by bike, or with‬
‭public transit. Only relatively high-density neighbourhoods with mixed uses can enable such a‬
‭way of life, and this is precisely the transformation many previously ignored inner-city areas have‬
‭lately been undergoing the world over. An increasing proportion of new housing construction in‬
‭cities today is high-density and mixed-use in form, necessitating much greater urban-architectural‬
‭attention and “housing thinking”.‬

‭ ighly sculptural swirl- or blob-shaped building forms may make for fabulous iconic museums or‬
H
‭country villas, but as urban housing typologies they tend not to work. The city is an eco-system,‬
‭of which housing is the largest physical component. A system is, by definition, never a “one-off”‬
‭object, such as a singular work of art, but a network of pieces that interact, is expandable, and is‬
‭therefore open. Unlike the closed singular building, housing has to consider the economical‬
‭necessity of its multiplication and variation as a basic building type. This is not to say that housing‬
‭has to systematically repeat sameness, of course. Far from it: like any eco-system, a good‬
‭housing system incorporates diversity, flexibility, and resilience; it offers a range of possibilities for‬
‭different ways of living and different kinds of households. It should be thought of as a support‬
‭rather than a fixed, immutable structure. The paradox, however, is that to offer things like‬
‭flexibility, certain limitations must simultaneously be established. There is no flexibility without‬
‭some form of structure in place, from infra- to super- to architectural.‬

I‭ndeed, another problem with housing, unlike custom houses which are designed to fulfil a known,‬
‭specific client’s needs, is that one never knows‬‭whom‬‭exactly one is designing for. Most likely, it‬
‭is the proverbial family with 2.4 children, but increasingly this is no longer so. One of the most‬
‭fundamental problems with housing is that a set of assumptions have to be made about the‬
‭eventual occupants. The challenge of our time, when it comes to housing, is post-Fordist in‬
‭nature, the Model T of dwelling units not being suitable in this day and age.‬

‭ hese kinds of questions are not normally central to architecture, but in the case of housing they‬
T
‭most certainly are. As quantitative, more anonymous background rather than qualitatively‬
‭authored foreground figure, housing is seemingly in a dialectical relation with architecture.‬
‭Perhaps, as was once considered the case, housing isn’t even architecture, strictly speaking.‬
‭Perhaps housing is not fine art. But as cities grow, transform, and become more complex and‬
‭diverse, they invite sound housing thinking.‬