Elemental, the Chilean architectural practice of Alejandro Aravena, developed a housing model in the early 2000s where, using government funds, the expensive parts of site development and of a house are built first: site services, then in each house, bathrooms, kitchen, stairs, party walls and roof. This is the first half. The second half is eventually built into the space between these cores. In the Santa Catarina project above, there are 70 units on .6ha; the area is middle class, not a slum, and half the project was intended to be self-built according to means, opportunity and needs.
Elemental's incremental housing was also criticized for the poor construction quality of the infills, resulting in leaks and dampness typical of much self-built housing. This is perhaps not Elemental's fault, since they weren't responsible for the construction of the infills, but then again user-built infill was the very idea of the project. The individuality of the infills is certainly photogenic, though.
There is something infantilising about keeping people from doing anything with their houses, or dwelling units themselves. Sure, the infills might be shoddy construction, but so are (in this country) many developer-built units which through bylaws, building codes and neighbourhood associations do not allow any changes at all. They are units, not allowed to be made into homes. I don't see self-builds as picturesque, rather as hopeful and brave.
I'm all for dwellings that users can modify (I turned my place completely on its head: https://rafagomo.com/2014/10/01/upside-down-maisonette/). But modifications have to be safe and sound. Did Elemental make themselves available for consultation by inhabitants when they built infills? Doesn't sound like it.
If you look at the working drawings (https://www.elementalchile.cl/en/), and get past all the legal exceptions for using them, and look at the details page (I only looked at Iquique) there is enough there to build the infill in the same way. But, because it is at this point a self-build addition there is no rule that says the infill has to follow the original drawings. I expect that available skills and cost of materials has much to do with the perhaps haphazard construction of the infills.
Two thoughts: my sense is that Gen-Z doesn't aspire to R-1 living; I think apartment (and condo) living will become much more common in a number of North American cities and suburbs as the habitable zone of the planet becomes narrower and these conurbations necessarily become denser. I appreciate the liveliness of Elemental projects. Learning from Pessac.
For every one who self-identifies as Gen-Z, there are many others who don't label themselves, but have what they feel are traditional expectations, which, in most of North America (like, not New York City), still looks like what they grew up in. It might have roots in class and the striving for 'freedom' coming out of such a different history than Europe and its spatial and geographic intensity. Social change, which is what is needed, is surprisingly slow.
thought provoking as always. I was reminded that my parents and their parents lived in apartments in Budapest in the 1900s.I don't know if they were rented or bought There were very few single family dwellings like we have in North America. Some may have owned country houses but that is another story.
If there has been anything that has brought that lesson home it is in the bombing of Ukrainian apartment buildings in the cities: these aren't necessarily architectural gems, just a tradition of centralised living for generation after generation. The villages and smaller towns, such as Bucha, seem to be single small lots, not unproductive suburban houses, but houses plus sheds plus chickens plus vegetable plots: also a traditional way of life across generations. From what I understand, dachas and their equivalents across Europe, were mainly summer houses where produce was an important activity. But somebody correct me on this.
Elemental's incremental housing was also criticized for the poor construction quality of the infills, resulting in leaks and dampness typical of much self-built housing. This is perhaps not Elemental's fault, since they weren't responsible for the construction of the infills, but then again user-built infill was the very idea of the project. The individuality of the infills is certainly photogenic, though.
There is something infantilising about keeping people from doing anything with their houses, or dwelling units themselves. Sure, the infills might be shoddy construction, but so are (in this country) many developer-built units which through bylaws, building codes and neighbourhood associations do not allow any changes at all. They are units, not allowed to be made into homes. I don't see self-builds as picturesque, rather as hopeful and brave.
I'm all for dwellings that users can modify (I turned my place completely on its head: https://rafagomo.com/2014/10/01/upside-down-maisonette/). But modifications have to be safe and sound. Did Elemental make themselves available for consultation by inhabitants when they built infills? Doesn't sound like it.
If you look at the working drawings (https://www.elementalchile.cl/en/), and get past all the legal exceptions for using them, and look at the details page (I only looked at Iquique) there is enough there to build the infill in the same way. But, because it is at this point a self-build addition there is no rule that says the infill has to follow the original drawings. I expect that available skills and cost of materials has much to do with the perhaps haphazard construction of the infills.
Two thoughts: my sense is that Gen-Z doesn't aspire to R-1 living; I think apartment (and condo) living will become much more common in a number of North American cities and suburbs as the habitable zone of the planet becomes narrower and these conurbations necessarily become denser. I appreciate the liveliness of Elemental projects. Learning from Pessac.
For every one who self-identifies as Gen-Z, there are many others who don't label themselves, but have what they feel are traditional expectations, which, in most of North America (like, not New York City), still looks like what they grew up in. It might have roots in class and the striving for 'freedom' coming out of such a different history than Europe and its spatial and geographic intensity. Social change, which is what is needed, is surprisingly slow.
thought provoking as always. I was reminded that my parents and their parents lived in apartments in Budapest in the 1900s.I don't know if they were rented or bought There were very few single family dwellings like we have in North America. Some may have owned country houses but that is another story.
If there has been anything that has brought that lesson home it is in the bombing of Ukrainian apartment buildings in the cities: these aren't necessarily architectural gems, just a tradition of centralised living for generation after generation. The villages and smaller towns, such as Bucha, seem to be single small lots, not unproductive suburban houses, but houses plus sheds plus chickens plus vegetable plots: also a traditional way of life across generations. From what I understand, dachas and their equivalents across Europe, were mainly summer houses where produce was an important activity. But somebody correct me on this.