Article One:
Material Focus: OE House by Fake Industries Architectural Agonism + Aixopluc
The big economic crisis in Spain was paradoxically an opportunity to expand material options, as you must always have at least two "A plans" for each construction solution, in order to accept accidents and unforeseen events. If material A1 is not available, we use material A2. If the company that was going to build system A3 has shut down, we will use system A4. This has allowed the house not only to survive the slow and sometimes hard construction process, but actually to improve during these uncertain times.
At the early stages, each concept has an associated material system. At some point we were thinking about building the winter and summer houses with two independent structure systems, exploring an impossible continuity between them. As the project moved on, some of them were discarded, and we developed thin steel frames that contained both opposing environments.
Taken from Arch Daily
Article Two:
Micro-Apartments: Are Expanding Tables and Folding Furniture a Solution to Inequality?
In his recent article, Nick Axel puts forward a compelling argument for the (re)distribution of city-space according to use value: kickball trophies and absentee owners out, efficient use of space in. Distributing urban space according to use certainly makes sense. Along with unoccupied luxury condos that are nothing more than assets to the 1% and mostly empty vacation apartments, expelling (rarely accessed) back-closets to the suburbs frees more of the limited space in cities for people to actually live in.
When, however, this is stretched into a rationale for micro-apartments, the argument begins to thin. There is a big difference between arguing against large apartments, holding nothing but wealth, and arguing that 400sqft apartments (the current legal minimum) are under-used and inefficient. Axel is arguing that micro-apartments offer a design solution to urban inequality by seeing them “as a legal mechanism to distribute, through architecture and urbanism, standards of living.”
While he is perhaps right to acknowledge that for many people the current minimum floor area is “nothing more than an ideal,” lowering the standards we aspire toward will not make living conditions better and will, in reality, only legitimize more substandard-sized homes. Allotting residents apartments that are smaller than the current legal minimum may indeed allow for more of them to squeeze in, but can it really be argued that living standards are reducible to nothing more than their proximity to downtown?
Reviews of the Carmel Place apartments report that they seem remarkably spacious. According to Amy Plitt at Curbed, “The first thing you notice when you enter [...] is how big it feels.” Carefully designed and compactly organized, the promotional material suggests that the minimum standard of living is facilitated by nothing more than a certain range of furniture – what the apartments lack in size, they make up for in retractable beds and expanding tables. With a couch that folds into the bed, a table that folds into the wall and expands and contracts, and a range of hidden storage units, the extra 100sqft becomes superfluous. The spaces use clever design to glamorize a sort of luxury substandard that can all too easily become a justification—or, more worryingly, a normalization—of substandard conditions for people who don’t have access to the same palliatives. The Clei-designed furniture that makes the apartment so versatile and so spacious is far beyond the price range of the vast majority of New Yorkers.
Taken from Arch Daily
Article Three:
Fremantle's 'Tiny House' Planning Amendment
A City of Fremantle councillor has put forward an amendment to the Western Australian planning scheme that could see more “tiny houses” built in the city.
Councillor Rachel Pemberton said the idea for the amendment came from the personal experience of herself and her peers – young professionals interested in living modestly within a communal environment without being part of a co-op.
But the current planning scheme does not accommodate this scenario. “We were discussing these kinds of ideas and in one instance, found a perfect block […] but the council said all we could do was one big house and a granny flat and that was pretty much it,” Pemberton said.
Pemberton also said the existing planning scheme is ineffective at delivering good design outcomes. “The current R-codes here in Western Australia are a very blunt instrument. There are all these compromises that end up getting made [and result in] a poor outcome for everyone, both the person inside the house and the neighbourhood.”
The amendment proposes to allow for the subdivision of larger residential blocks to create smaller independently owned houses. It proposes a maximum size of 120 square metres for each dwelling (by way of comparison, this is well above the minimum of 90 square metres for a three-bedroom apartment under New South Wales’ new Apartment Design Guide).
The amendment also encourages the creative adaptation of existing buildings. “One of the things that I think is particularly exciting is that this actually enables the conversion of one single dwelling into multiple dwellings within the existing built form,” Pemberton said.
Fremantle City Council has supported the amendment and has carried out a series of investigations to see how it could apply in the city.
The amendment includes a set of open space requirements designed to maintain local neighbourhood characteristics and achieve density through infill housing at the same time.
Taken from ArchitectureAU
Taken from ArchitectureAU
Combined Article
Key:
Article One
Article Two
Article Three
Key:
Article One
Article Two
Article Three
The big economic crisis in Spain was paradoxically an opportunity for the (re)distribution of city-space according to use value: kickball trophies and absentee owners out, efficient use of space in. The existing planning scheme is ineffective at delivering good design outcomes, 400sqft apartments (the current legal minimum) are under-used and inefficient. Two independent systems, carefully designed and compactly organised furniture and the creative adaptation of existing buildings is nothing more than an ideal design solution to urban inequality by seeing them as a legal mechanism to distribute, through architecture and urbanism, standards of living.
Thinking about building the houses with two independent structure systems, exploring an impossible continuity between them, could lead to homes designed to maintain local neighbourhood characteristics and achieve density through infill housing at the same time. The minimum standard of living is facilitated by nothing more than clever design, you must always have at least two "A plans" for each construction solution, in order to accept accidents and unforeseen events. This has allowed houses not only to survive the slow and sometimes hard construction process, but actually to improve during uncertain times. With a couch that folds into the bed, a table that folds into the wall and expands and contracts, and a range of hidden storage units, an extra 100sqft becomes superfluous; the spaces use clever design to glamorize a sort of luxury standard.
One Point Perspectives
Developed from the 'cross' as part of Week One's activity.
One Point Perspectives
Developed from the 'cross' as part of Week One's activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment