life transforms living transforms life

��

sigrid lochNordic Journal of Architectural researchvolume 19, No 3, 2006, 12 pagesNordic Association for Architectural researchsigrid loch, Architect, research and teaching assistant, doctoral candidate, university stuttgart, faculty of Architecture and urban Planning, institute Housing and design

Abstract:life transforms living transforms life.current innovative housing projects reflect, in a certain way, the strong interdependence between types of dwelling and the way people live. in transition toward an information society, the general conditions of living have decisively changed. social and economic change, altering time structures and increasing flexibility at work have contributed to more heterogeneity, uncertainty and dynamic in professional and private life, resulting in heterogeneous and transi-tional living standards. Today, the key impulse behind the new housing concepts evolves rather from these social processes than from technical innovations. flexible and adaptable types of housing play a dominant role in the built solutions. These concepts of housing offer a multitude of co-existing options „as well as“ replacing the predetermined mutually exclusive alternatives „either/or“ industrial society used to provide. but the projects also show new ways of connecting factors of in-determinateness with factors of determinateness: in the important relationship between humans and their environment, anchorage is provided through orientation and foundation in housing.

Life transforms living transforms life

TOPIC:TIME-BASEDDWELLING

Key words:“determined indeterminateness”, flexibility, Adaptability, social change, individualization, diversification, orientation, identification

�� Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 2006: 3

IntroThesubjectofdwellingistime-basedaslivingneedschangeovertime.Inthewakeoftransitiontoaninformationsoci-ety,thegrowingdynamicsinlivingandworkingconditionsintensifyandacceleratethisprocessofchangeinhousing.Inthiscontext,flexibilityconceptsthatopenupindividualoptionsofuseandcatertothegrowingdiversityofuserdemands,gaininimportance.

Housing flexibility in the �0th centuryDuringthe20thcentury,flexibilityconceptshavebeenaperiodicallyrecurringinfluencefortheproductionofhous-inginEurope.Thus,awealthofexperienceisavailableto-day.Essentialflexibilityconceptshadalreadybeendevel-opedbytheavant-gardeofClassicalModernism.Theywereeconomicallymotivated and tried to apply thedynamicprincipletohousing.Theideaofflexibilityservedprimar-ilyasameansto“liberateliving”fromoutdatedpatternsofthebourgeoistradition.Yet,theavant-gardeideasabout“individualdevelopmentwithintheprivatesphere”onlyplayedamarginalroleinthe“mainstream”housingpro-ductionofEuropeanindustrialsocieties.BasedontheideasofthehousingreformersoftheWeimarRepublic,housingforthemassesbecamemoreandmoreassociatedwithstan-dardizedfamilyhousingandfloorplanpatternsthatstrictlypredeterminedthespecificfunctionofeachroom.

Theideaofflexibilitywasparticularlycontradictorytothepoliticalgoalsofhomogeneityandstability,sincelivingwasseenasadynamicprocessand,aboveall,aimedatopen-ingupoptionsfordeviantandindividualpractice.Thus,notonlywereflexibilityconceptsnotreflectedinpostin-dustrialsociety’sidealpatternsofhousingandlifestyle,buttheyalsocontradictedthesocialidealsofanaspiringwork-ingandmiddleclassuntilthe1960s.

Onlyas thepostwarhousing shortagehad slowlyde-creasedinthe1960sandbroughtforwardagrowingcriti-cismtowardstheone-dimensionalutilitarianismwastheideaofflexibilityasacounter-concepttopredeterminedhousingrediscoveredandreinterpretedinvariousways.

Amongawidevarietyofconceptualapproachestoflex-ibility,mostoftheprojectsthatwereactuallybuiltduringthe1960sand70sfocusedoninnovationsinstructuralde-signandontestingnewtypesofproduction.ThisemphasisalsobecomesvisibleintheprojectmegacityWulfen(1974,

architectRichardDietrich)thatwasactuallyimplemented.Itwastheonly“frameworkoflife”–asthenumerousuto-pianflexibleurbanstructuresofthattimewerelatercalled1.(Picture1)Thedesignwasbasedonindustriallyprefabri-catedmodulesthataddeduptoanurbanstructure,where

eachtypeofmodulewasregardedsufficientforeverykindofurbanfunction.Duringthisperiod,subjectiveuserde-mandsandaspectsofappropriationthrougharchitecturalexpression,wereoftenneglected.

Thisisalsotrueofmanybuildingsthatresultedfromprominent German architectural competitions of the1970s,suchas“Elementa72”,“FlexibleWohngrundrisse”and“Integra”.In1977,GuenterBehnischaccordinglycriti-cized the nondescript architectural appearance of manyflexibilityprojectsofthe1970s:

Itisremarkablethat,atapointintimewhenallthetalkinbuildingisaboutflexibilityandvariability,thearchitecturalex-pressionispredominantlyrigid.(…)Annoyingdesignfeaturesareuniformity,ruthlessness,lackofimaginationandindividu-ality,immoderateness,caginess(…)Delightfulare:individual-ism,senseofproportion,vitality,openness,smallness.2

Inadditiontooccurringtechnicalandmarket-relateddif-ficulties,thelackofcomplexityinthedesignconceptsandtheneglectofaestheticdimensionsfinallyledtoseverecriti-cism.ThedemolitionofmetacityWulfenin1988becamea

Picture 1. bauen + wohnen internationale Zeitschrift. issue 5/ 1973, p. 188- 198.

��sigrid loch: life transforms living transforms life

symbolforthefailureoftechnocraticflexibilityapproachesof the 1960sand70s inGermany.After initial euphoriaaboutthefutureperspectivesofadaptablehousingprojects,usersandplannershadbecomenoticeablydisillusionedbythemiddleofthe1970s.

New user demands in housingAfteraperiodoflatency,theroleofflexibilitywithininnova-tivehousingconceptshasregainedimportancesincetheendofthe1980s.Incontrasttotheconceptsofthe60sand70s,thenewmodelsarestronglyinterrelatedwiththesocial,cul-turalandeconomicchangesinpostindustrialsociety.Grow-ingprosperity,individualizationanddistinctionoflifestylesduetothechangeinvalues,modifiedhouseholdandpopula-tionstructuresaswellasthechangingworldofemployment,haveallcontributedtoaqualitativeshiftinhousingrequire-ments.Thetrendismovingawayfromtheconformityinhousingandlivingpatternsofanindustrialsocietytowardsgreaterheterogeneityandinstabilityinlivingarrangements.

Therolemodelofsociallife,thatdeterminedhowtoliveone’sownlifeaccordingtothepresetspecificationsoftradi-tionalblueprints,isbecomingobsolete.3

Hence,newspecificdemandsforadaptabilityinhousingisdevelopingwithinabroaderclassofthepopulation,con-siderablybroadening the rangeof alreadyknownadapt-abilitymotives(familycycle,economy,participation).Fourmainaspectsofsocialchangeseemtoparticularlystimu-latetheevolutionofnewflexibilitydemandsinhousing.(Picture2)

Individualization and diversificationThetheoristsofreflexiveModernism4directlylinkthecul-turalturmoilofthe1960s,andwiththistheweakenedimpor-tanceofthecategoriesofclass,familyandgender,tosociety’sstriveforindividualizationanddiversification,processesthatpavedthewaytowarddiversificationinlivingarrangementsandlifestyles.Thediscontinuityinthecourseofpeople’slivesformspartofthesedevelopments.Nowadays,thecourseoflifenolongerfollowapredictablelineofdevelopmentbutaremerely“patchworks”ofdifferentphasesofeducation,em-ployment,parentalleaveanddomesticwork,directlyaffectinghousingandlivingneeds.Inaddition,variousresearchshowthatresidentsdevelopagrowingdesireforappropriationofspace,self-representationandidentification.Thesignificanceofhousingthenshiftsfromtherealmofsatisfyingneedstoanareaforindividualself-actualization.5Furthermore,thesedevelopmentsareassociatedwithprocessesof“de-sensualiza-tionofworkandeverydaylife”.Thismeansthat,toalargeextent,futurespheresoflivingwillhavetocompensatefortheanonymityandthelackofpublicinteractionintheworldofemployment.6Accordingtoresearchresults,providingop-tionsforidentityformation,distinctionandindividualap-propriationwillbecomemorerelevantintheprivatesphere.

New household arrangementsTheself-containedlivingpatternofnuclearfamiliesthatservedasthehousingidealofmodernindustrialsocietiesisgraduallylosingimportance.Householdandlivingar-rangementsarefundamentallychanginganddiversifying.In addition, family households, singles, DINKS, single-parentsandapartmentsharesplayamajorrole.(Picture3)Today,householdsarealsosubjecttoacceleratedinternalchangethatisreflectedinthehighdivorcerates(36%inGermanyasoftoday).Itdirectlyinfluencesthesphereofliving.Moreover,householdmemberslivealongsideeachotherratherthanwitheachotherinmanycases:

Farmorefamiliesarefallingapartthanthegrowingnumberofsinglehouseholdsshowninthestatistics.Theyevenfallapartalthoughtheirorganizationalformisstillintact.Thefamiliesoftodayarepredominantlyalliancesofsingledwell-ers.Assoonaschildrenlearnhowlifefunctionstoday,theystarttobecometheirownfocusofliving.7Picture 2. Author.


Demographic changeBecauseofthepredicteddemographicdevelopmentwithagrowingproportionofolderpeople,providinghousingfortheelderlywillbecomeanimportantsectorinhousing.Duetovaryingexperiencesandwaysoflifeaswellasdemands,futurehousingforolderpeoplewillrequiremultifariousso-phisticatedapproaches.Thus,thespecificdemandsinplan-ningforolderpeoplecannoteasilybegraspedandappeartoextendbeyondthepoliticalgoalsoffunctionalimprove-

ment by making buildings handi-capped accessible (DIN 18025) or ofprovidingmorecare.Themajorityofpeopleolderthan65years–morethan93%–stilllivesintheirown“normal”apartmentandwantstoremainthere.8Butmostoftheseapartmentsmaynotbeadequatelyadaptabletochangesinhouseholdsizeorcomposition(familycycle,needforcare,deathofspouse).The consequences are financial bur-dens and difficulties in providingmaintenanceandcare.Flexibilitycon-cepts for dividable apartments seemreasonablehere.Anothercharacteris-ticchangewhenpeoplebecomeolderis that the apartment becomes moreimportantfortheindividual,particu-larlyifhealthproblemslimitthescopeofactivity.Similartoextendedinter-valsofunemployment, life formanyolderpeoplenarrowsdowntoliving.Multifunctional and alterable spatialconfigurations may help inhabitantsto become more active and to avoidpassive patterns of behavior. Apartfrom functional improvements, flex-ibilitywidenstheresident’simaginarylivingspaceandthuscancounterworkthefeelingofbeingtrappedthatoftenaccompanies physical impairment inoldage.

Changing world of employmentInthecontextofglobalizationofna-tionaleconomies,GermanyandEu-

ropeistransformingintoinformationandservicessocietieswithfar-reachingconsequencesforprivateandpubliclife.(Picture4)Existinglaborconditionswithpredominantlyfull-timeworkprevalentinindustrialsocietyarebeingre-placedbynewjobprofilesandmodifiedformsofemploy-ment.Theintroductionof“flexibility”tothelabormarketischaracterizedbythedeparturefrom“standardemploy-mentconditions”aswellas“standardworkinghours”.

Picture 3. Author. source: statistisches bundesamt, mikrozensus 2002.

��sigrid loch: life transforms living transforms life

Thedevelopmentof the labormarket isbecomingmoredividedintoseminallinesofbusinessontheonehandandleadingtoasimultaneousreductionofjobsinindustryandmanufacturingontheotherhand.Eventhoughnationalproductivityisincreasing,lessemployeesdirectlyaccountforit.Itisestimatedthatin21stcenturyGermany,itwouldbepossibletomaintaintoday’snationalstandardofeco-nomicproductivitywithonlytwentypercentofthecur-rentworkforce.9

Newconditionsforlivingandhousingariseduetothegrowthinunemployment(5millionor12.1%asofJanuary2005)andanincreaseintheproportionofpart-timejobs(14%in1991to23%in2004)10–theamountoffreetimethatindividualshaveattheirdisposalaugments.

Being unemployed means that life involuntarily consistsofliving.Thelivingspace–hithertoacontainerfilledwithprojections–suddenlyappearsastheconfined,overlywell-

knownspacethatlifenarrowsdownto.Theentire rangeofpersonaldemandsoflifehavetobemetwithinthisspace–theapartmentbecomesaprisonforlivingexpectations.11

Inthiscontext,newconceptsofhous-ing flexibility emerge. Particularly inphases of involuntary (partial) un-employment,apartmentsthatcanbesubdivided into smaller units (costreduction) can be crucial to preventsocialisolation.Butalsonewformsofworkingathome,suchaslong-distancelearning,moonlighting,sporadicfree-lancing and a growing– cost-related–demandforhomecarecallfornewadaptablespatialsolutions.

Furthermore, the increasing im-portance of home-telecommut-ing and phases of life-long-learningconnect the private and profes-sional sphere throughnew formsofspatiotemporaloverlapping.

In Germany, 16.6 % of allemployees telecommuted in2002, putting Germany in the up-

per intermediate position in the rankings within theEU.12(Picture5)Informationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)canmeanwhilebeconsideredasmasstechnologythatistakenforgrantedwithinprivatelivingspaces.13Adaptablestructuresareneededthatrespondtothesenewconditionsandallowforcombinationandalternationofworkingandliving.

New flexibility conceptsInthisbriefdelineationofessentialdevelopmenttenden-cies,thewidevarietyandenormouspotentialforchangeinhousingandlivingbecomesvisible.Thenewconditionsanduserdemandsareachallengefortoday’splanningandextendtheoptionsforindividualpractices.

Duetotheindividualvaluesofusers,anincreasingde-sireforpersonalinfluenceandidentificationwithintheliv-ingspherebecomesevident.Contrarytotheperiodofthe1960sand70s,thepresentflexibilityapproachesacknowl-

Picture 5 Author. source: empirica: sibis 2002.

Picture 4. Author. source: dostal, werner: von der industriegesellschaft zur informationsgesellschaft. in: schader-stiftung (ed.): wohnwandel. darmstadt 2001, p. 24.


edgethesetendenciesofindividualizationbyfollowingde-signapproachesthatfocusoncreatingidentitybutalsobycarefullyandpreciselyprofilingtheuser’sneeds.Incontrasttotheideaofstructuralflexibilityinthe1960swithitsneu-tralframeworksormodulesthatprovidedanall-purposestructureforallkindsofuses,thenewconceptsfocusoncustomization.Spatialopennessandindeterminatenessarecombinedwithdistinctprofilingofspecificfunctionalandsubjectiveuserdemands.

In the following, some examples of recent flexibilityprojects from German-speaking countries will be intro-duced.Eventhoughtheconceptualapproachesdiffer,pre-dominanttendenciesinthedevelopmentofflexiblehous-ingbecomevisible.

Yet,theflexibilitystrategiesappliedhereareinnocasetotallynew.Theprojectsshowfurtherdevelopmentsandreinterpretationsofflexibilityconcepts,mostofwhichhav-ingalreadybeendevelopedduringtheClassicalModern-ism.Theprojectspresentedmaybeclassifiedbythefollow-ingschemeofmethodsofadaptability:

1. Internal adaptation

1.1interpretableandsubdividableloftspace(KoelnerBrett,Estradenhaeuser,Sargfabrik)1.2neutral-usespaces (Hellmutstrasse,Vogelbach,projectsofH.Wimmer)1.3modifiableinteriorwalls(Ingolstadt)1.4movablescreens/partitionwall(projectsofHelmutWimmer,Estradenhaeuser)1.5mobilefittingsandmultifunctionalfurniture(EstradenhausNr.55)1.6multifunctionalthresholdspaces(Estradenhaeuser,Vogelbach)

2. External adaptation

2.1combiningandseparatinghorizontalandvertical(Hellmutstrasse)2.2adjustablefloorplansizeandextension2.3individualcompletionoftheinterior

Koelner Brett, b&k+ (Brandlhuber & Kniess), Cologne, Germany, �� Whereasduringthe1960sand70sAldoRossitheoreticallyarguedthatinthelongrunspecific-usetypologiesarestillopenforvarioususes–amonasteryforexamplecanlateraccommodateaschoolorahotel–thenotionof“hybridtypology”isvastlydifferent,ascouldbeseeninthemorerecentprojects.Forinstance,insteadofconvertingofficespaceintohousing,livingmaylooklikeworkingandwork-ingmayevenassumethecharacterofliving.

Analogies to this point of view can be found in themultifunctional loft building “Koelner Brett“ in Co-logneplannedbyb&k+architektenin1999.(Picture6,7)

Theheterogeneoussurroundings,aformercommercialareainthedistrictofEhrenfeld,providedroomforexperimen-

tation.Twelvenestedhousingandworkingunitscanbeac-cesseddirectlyonthegroundfloorandviatwoaccessbal-conies on the upper floors.Theunitsaremultifunctionaland may accommodate liv-ing,workingandrecreationalusesinvariouscombinations.The two-storey units havebeenpre-equippedforthein-tegrationofagallery.Livingandworkingmaytakeplaceontwodifferentlevels,either

Picture 6. brayer, marie-Ange; simonot, béatrice: Archilab’s futurehouse. london 2002, p. 80.

Picture 7. AiT, 7/8 2002, p.97.

��

separatedoroverlapping.The interiorwasonlypartiallycompletedinordertoleaveroomforindividualpreferencesofresidentsbutalsotosavecosts.Thisconceptaimedatap-plyingqualityfeaturesofoldloftsonanewbuilding.

In addition to the ideaofhybrid typology, thehous-ingunitsalsoreflecttheideaofthe“Einraumwohnung”(studio).Thishousingconcepthasarchaicroots,butitsdi-mensionsoffreedomandopennesshavebeenrediscoveredduringModernism.16Apartfromtheaestheticandspatialaspects (“Raumplan”), the Einraumwohnung served astestinggroundforcompactoverlappingofuses.IthastobestressedthattheEinraumwohnungconceptwasthor-oughlyconceivedforsingles,anewmodernisttypeofcitydweller.Inthisspirit,GreteSchuette-Lihotzkydevelopeda27squaremeterautonomous“housingunitforworkingwomen”thatwaspresentedduringtheMunichexhibition“HeimundTechnik”in1928.(Picture8)Thehousingunitiswalledbyalayerofsecondaryfunctionsthatmayalter-nately“invade”thecenter.DuringModernism,theEin-raumwohnung concept emphasized three main aspects:aesthetic, functional (overlap of uses), and social (smallhouseholdsizes)considerations.

Estradenhaeuser Chorinerstrasse, Wolfram Popp, Berlin, Gemany �� und �00�Alloftheseaspectscanalsobefoundinthetwoone-roomunitsthatarchitectWolframPoppbuiltinBerlinin1998and2002 (Chorinerstrasse 55 and 56). (Picture9, 10, 11,12)UnliketheKoelnerBrett,thetworesidentialbuildings

aresituatedinthevividurbanneighborhood“PrenzlauerBerg”.Ontheproject’sfiveupperfloors,livingspacesforsingles,single-parenthouseholds,andcouplesareprovided.ThisisaresponsetotheGermandevelopmentofdecreasing

Picture 8. weigel, doris: die einraumwohnung als raeumliches manifest der moderne. schliengen 1996, p. 133.

Picture 9. [email protected]

Picture 10. [email protected]

sigrid loch: life transforms living transforms life

�0 Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 2006: 3

householdsizes.Buteventhoughtheproportionofsmallhouseholds is growing (about 70% single/two-personshouseholdsasoftoday),thedemandforsmallapartments

isnotnecessarilyboostingaswell.17 Likewise, the projectdoesnotaimforminimizationà laGreteSchuette-Lihotzkyastheunitswith79and108squaremetersareratherspa-cious (in house number 56).Nevertheless, the concept offlexibilityisbasedonthesameprinciple:alinearzoneofsec-ondaryfunctionsthatcouldbeconnected to theneutralcentralspaceoftheunit.Bothbuildings are based on theconcept of spatial interplaybetweenprimaryandsecond-ary functions. The overlapof functions is organized bya flexible wall with gill-likepanels that could be rotatedandmoved(inhousenumber

56).Inthesecondpartoftheproject,additionalpartitionelementswereintroduced,servingasstorageelementsthatallowforashort-termorlong-termdivisionofspace.

Infrontoftheglassfaçades,spaceisalsozonedbytwoplatformsthatareconnectedwithabalcony.Theseslightlyelevatedareas(36cm)providestructurewithoutinterfer-ingwiththefreedomofuse.Onthecontrary,thearchitec-ture’sstimulativenaturebecomesmostapparentinthesethreshold spaces.Nothing ispredeterminedor staticallyfixed.Spatialfunctionsaredefinedthroughactivitytak-ingplace.Thresholdspacesallowforgreaterfreedomofuseandinterpretation.Notonlythethresholdspacesbutalsotheopencentralspaceofthetwobuildingsfeaturesthestimulativenature,intensifiedbythesizeandproportionoftheroom.Thisspaceisonlydefinedbythespatialuseandoverlappingofthesecondaryfunctions.Withthisnewbuildings,WolframPoppsucceedsinintroducingusageasaspace-shapingfactorintoarchitecture;aqualitythatcom-monlyprevailsinoldlofts.Thisprincipleofstructuringspaceasanopenfieldforindividualpracticeandactivityis

acompletedeparturefrompredetermininghousingdesignbasedonfurniturefootprintsandmovementpatterns.

Wohnbebauung Vogelbach, Michael Alder, Riehen, Switzerland, ��Thedesignofan“architectureofusage”isnotconfinedtosmall households, as the three following examples fromotherGerman-speakingcountrieswilldemonstrate:

Inordertoincreaseflexibility,MichaelAlderalsointro-ducedathresholdspaceintothecollaborativelyinitiatedhousing concept “Wohnbebauung Vogelbach” of 1992.(Picture13)Alder’stypologicalnotionseemsakintoAldoRossi’s concept of multifunctional adaptable typologies.WhereasAldoRossisolelyappliesthe“neutralityofuse”ofancientdesignstohisresidentialbuilding“Gallaratese”

(Milan1970),MichaelAlder’snewapproachtohousingac-tuallymakesuseofentireancienttypologies.

Wedevelopourbuildingsbylookingbackandcapturingtheessenceofthetypology.”Thetypology“allowsforaseriesofmetamorphosisfollowingpredeterminedrules.18

MichaelAlder’s conceptof “traditional typologies”mostvisiblymaterializes in thefloorplansof theproject.His“mapoftypologies”isbasedonanonymousregionalbuild-ingtypesfromSwitzerlandandItaly.ThefloorplansoftheVogelbachprojectarebasedontheabstractedidealtypeofarural,stretched-out“corridorhouse”.Thefloorplancon-

Picture 11. stefan meyer Architekturfotografie. c/o siebzehn 04, brunnenstr. 181, 10119 berlin, [email protected]

Picture 12. ibidem

Picture 13. werk, bauen und wohnen. issue3/ 1993, p.16.

��

sistsofasequenceofseveralneutral-useroomsalonganex-ceptionallycapaciousthresholdspacethatalsofunctionsasahall.Duetoitsrobustness,thisbuildingtypeprincipallyqualifiesinaccommodatingmanydifferentuses,rangingfromfamilyhousingtoapartmentshare,orofficeusetomedicalpractice,aswellasforvariouscombinations.Yet,mostoftheunitsoftheco-operativehousingprojectareoccupiedbyfamiliestoday.Themultifunctionalhubspaceisvariablyusedforworking,playingandliving.

Subsidized housing projects, Helmut Wimmer, Vienna, Austria ��Whereas Michael Alder’s design foresees neutral-use butspatially defined “permanent” structures, Helmut Wim-mer clearly chose a different strategy for flexibility andshort-termadaptability inhissubsidizedhousingprojectDonaufelderstrasseVienna,1998(Picture14).Almost1000housingunitshavealreadybeenconstructed.Theycontainflexiblepartitions that respond to varioushousehold ar-

rangementsandindividualdemandsofhouseholdmem-bers,whetherduringthecourseofthedayorforlong-termmodifications.Furthermore,alotofWimmer’sprojectsal-lowforindividualadaptationofthefaçade,suchasthe1996projectGrieshofgasse12inVienna-Meidling.

Flexibility–namelypermanent,usefulflexibility–tousisaquestionofequivalenceofrooms(inthesenseofmultifari-ous”connectivity”)andaquestionof“wall”construction(inthesenseofeasychangeability).19

Theflexibilityconceptofthedifferentprojectsleadsbacktothesame,extreme,underlyingprinciple.Thespatialsettingmaybemodifiedbyroom-highmovablescreens;completeopeningorpartitioningofindividualroomsispossible.Ser-viceunitsformthefixedelementsofthefloorplan.Incon-trasttoAlder’sclearandstablespatialcomposition,theseconfigurationsresultingfromthemutabilityofthebasicelementhaveanextraordinarilydynamicappearance.Onemaycriticizethelimitedusabilityoftheproject’sindividualzones:Extensivespaceshavetobekeptfreeoffurniture,otherwisetheflexibleelementscannotbealtered.

Hellmutstrasse, ADP, Zurich, Switzerland, ��Whereasthesetwoprojectsimplementtheconceptofflex-ibilitywithinthelimitoffloorplanborders,youngerinno-vationsfocusonadjustablefloorplansizes.Asophisticatedsolutionisthe1991combinationconceptbytheArchitek-tenADPfortheHellmutstrasseinZurich.(Picture15)

This adaptability model promotes, above all, externalchangesinapartmentsizebythealterationofapartmentfloorplanswithinthebuilding.Thesizesoftheneutral-usehousingunitsmaybemodifiedthroughbi-directionalcombinationandpartitionofspaces.Thus,thestructureallowsforadaptationtothedynamicchangesofhouseholdarrangements.However,thistypeofsystemonlyworkswelltoalimitedextent,sincethechangeofoneapartmenthastocorrespond–conversely-totheneighbor’sdemand.Ac-cordingtothearchitects,thisproblemcanbemitigatedbyacloseexchangeofinformationwithinthehousingcoopera-tion,sothat,forexample,apartmentexchangewithintheblockcouldbeorganized.20


Picture 14. dworschak, gunda; wenke, Alfred: Architektur verrueckt. berlin 2002, p.185.


Miss Sargfabrik, BKK �, Vienna, Austria, �000Likewise, the integrativehousing project Miss Sarg-fabrik by BKK 3 Architek-ten(Vienna,2000)wascol-laboratively initiated andimplemented (responsiblebody:VereinfuerintegrativeLebensgestaltung, Vienna).Itcomprises39housingunitswith50to60squaremetersand offers a variety of highquality community spaces.(Picture16,17)

Even though the hous-ing units are rather small,they have been detailed asneutral-use,habitablesculp-

tures.Differingspatialpro-portions, varying ceilingheights from 2.26 to 3.12meters, and gradual levelsofopennessandprivacyinrelation to the southwardaccess balcony all providespatial structure, yet leaveroom for individual inter-pretation. The concept ofmovement was introducedinto the architectural de-signandreplacestraditionalspace-shaping factors. Thespatial configuration isbased on a choreographicdiagram rather than on astaticdefinitionofpathandspace–ahousingsculpturethat stimulates activitiesand events. Its sculpturalcharacter evokes ClaudeParent’ssearchfor“vitaliza-tion of spaces”, which hesawcreatedbytheprincipleofslopes.

Slopesmakeapathanadventuretrail.Architecturebecomesthesupportinggroundformovement;movementisliber-atedfromfollowingfixedtracks;thechoiceofwayisopen.Itisnotamatterofchanneling,butofdistribution;notamatterofcontrol,butoftakingspace.21(Picture18)

Picture 17. ibidem Picture 18. werk, bauen+wohnen, issue 11/ 2002, p.19.

Picture 15. university stuttgart, institute Housing and design, student’s work.

Picture 16. bkk 3 Architektur ZT-gmbH

��

The expressive sculptural character of the project seemsratherconfinedtoexclusivevillas.

Thus, BKK 3 succeeds in applying characteristic ele-mentsofmodernvillastomassproducedhousing.Inthisway,theauthenticdesignofthebuildinganditssculpturedspacesevoketheexclusivefeelandthe“landscape-like”spa-tialimpressionofavanguardvilla.Thedesignguaranteesauniquelivingexperienceforeachresident.Thebuilding’s“branding”caterstotherisingdemandforidentificationandappropriation.

Summary

“Determined indeterminateness“Even though the projects shown vary in concepts, theydemonstrate predominant development tendencies andprinciples:

In recent housing innovations in German-speakingcountries, openness, adaptability and individually inter-pretablespacesplayanimportantroleagain–inspiteofthefailureofthemodelsfromthe1960sand70s.Inthewakeoftransitiontoaninformationsociety,thediversity,inconsistency,anddynamicsoflifearemirroredinconceptsofhousingthatofferamultitudeofcoexistingoptions“aswellas”replacingthepredeterminedmutuallyexclusiveal-ternatives“either/or”industrialsocietyusedtoprovide.Yet,housingalsoactsasacalmandconstantcounterbalancetotheexternalpressuretoadjusttoamoreandmorerapidlychangingenvironment.

Theprojects showthat inhousing “determinateness”–anchorageinthecloserelationshipbetweenhumansandtheirenvironment–cannotonlybeachievedbypersistent“familiar”designsbutalsoincompletelyotherways.Inthenewconcepts,theconnectionbetweenfactorsofindetermi-natenessandfactorsofdeterminatenessseemstocontributetotheimportantorientationandfoundationinhousing:

subject – orientation and foundation within the groupOne characteristic feature of the more recent flexibilityconceptsliesintheirstrongemphasisonspecificlifestylesanduserprofilesthatareinterrelatedwithsociety’stenden-cies toward individualization.Today,flexible spaceshavedevelopedawayfromthe1960s’and70s’ideaofoneuni-formandomnipotentmodulethatfitsallneeds.Instead,

sophisticated“profiling”forfutureresidentshasbecomeanessentialpartofplanning.

The special values and subjective needs of the users’milieusrespectivelythecollectivebecomeanessentialpa-rameterforplanning.Thisgrowinginterestinprivatejointbuildingventuresis,toacertainextent,areactiontothewelfarestate’swithdrawalfromsubsidizinghousing.Indeeddothepotentialcost-savingeffectsmakethesemodelsmoreandmorepopular.Butaboveall,theoptionforindividualinfluenceontheapartment’sdesign,thehousingenviron-mentand themixof residents is appreciated.FlexibilityprojectssuchastheHellmutstrasseortheSargfabrikwouldnotfunctionwithoutthecollaborativeeffortsoftheirresi-dents.Bytargetingaspecificgroupofusers,thenewmodelsrelyontheparadoxof“customizedflexibility“.Theinde-terminatenessofthesinglehousingunitsisnotfoundwith-inarandommixofresidentswithinan“anonymousblockofflats“butwithinaframethatisstronglydeterminedbyacertainmilieurespectivelythecollective.Thisfreechoiceofgroupmembershipcanprovideorientationandanchorageinhousingwithoutinterferingtoomuchwiththeindividu-al’slivingarrangements–eachundeterminedhousingunitallowsforverypersonalinterpretation.

object – orientation through identificationIntheSargfabrikproject,thecollaborativebackgroundbe-comesmostvisibleintheobject’sdesign.Thebuildingisamaterializedstatementofthecommunityspiritaswellasasymbolforit.

Meanwhile,manyotherflexibilitymodelsalsofocusonovercomingmuchcritised“uninspireddesign“ofthemod-elsfromthe1960sand70s.Neutralityofuseisnolongertranslatedintofacelessness.

Therelationshipbetweenspaceandprogramregainsitsadequate complexity through themeans of architecture.Thenewmodelsembracehistoricandimaginativedimen-sions;intheSargfabrikproject,thenewspatialphenom-enologyevencallsforthnarrativepotentials.Thebuilding’sdefinesanawarenessforsubjectiveexperience,inwhichar-chitecturalexpressionisusedtocreateidentity.Inthisway,thedesignofthebuildingstimulatestheestablishmentofarelationshipbetweenuserandobjectandthusprovidesfoundation.Butinspiteofthedeterminedoverallbuildingdesign,thesinglehousingunitremainsaflexibledynamic



zonethatisindividuallyshapedbytheuser’spractice.

program – orientation through appropriationComparedtoearlierperiods,thenewconceptsarebasedonafundamentalchangeofuserperception.Theuserisstim-ulatedtoactivelyandindividuallyconquerspaceinsteadofbeingconditionedinhisbehavior.Spaceismodulatedtoprovideoptionsforactionandtoencourageindividualappropriationand spatial experience. In the relationshipbetweensubject,spaceandobject,interactionandappro-riationemerge,butarenotpredeterminedbythebuilten-vironment.NotonlydotheloftandcubelikestructuresoftheEstradenhaeuserandthe“KoelnerBrett“permitvariousoptionsofaction,theyalsoofferenormouspersonalscopefortheuser.Byindividuallyshapinghisenvironment,theuser“takespossession”ofit–personalizationandappro-priationaremadepossible.

Comparedtomanyprojectsofthe1960sand70s,thenewprojectsreflectamorecomplexunderstandingofliv-ingastheycombinemultipleoptionsof“determinateness“with“indeterminateness“ofindividualuse.

Perhaps it is exactly the contradictorydiversityof livingneedstodaythatwillbringabouta“moveintotheopen”,searchingforthatspezial“unfinished”characterofthepro-cessoflivingwithoutneglectingtheessentialaspectsofori-entationandsettinginhumandwelling.

Translated from German by Karoline Brombach

Notes1 Pehnt,Wolfgang:DeutscheArchitektur seit 1900.Munich

2005,p.347–355.2 Behnisch,Guenter:Z.B.Offenheit,Vielfalt,Ordnung. In:

Baumeister,issue3,1977,p.245-262,quotedfrom:

Flagge, Ingeborg: Zwischen Leitbild und Wirklichkeit in:Flagge,Ingeborg(Ed.):GeschichtedesWohnens,Volume5.Von1945bisheute.Aufbau–Neubau–Umbau.Stuttgart1999,p.879.

3 Beck,Ulrich:Individualisierung,GlobalisierungundPolitik.In:Arch+,issue158,12/2001,p.30.

4 Beck,Ulrich/Giddens,Anthony/LashScott:ReflexiveMod-ernisierung – Eine Kontroverse, Frankfurt am Main 1996;Beck,Ulrich:Risikogesellschaft–AufdemWegineineandereModerne.FrankfurtamMain2003;Giddens,Anthony:Ent-fesselteWelt–WiedieGlobalisierungunserLebenverändert.FrankfurtamMain2001;Rifkin,Jeremy:Acces.FrankfurtamMain2000;Glotz,Peter:DiebeschleunigteGesellschaft.Hamburg2001;Schulze,Gerhard:DieErlebnisgesellschaft.FrankfurtamMain1992.

5 Raith,Frank-Berthold/vanGool,Rob:StrategienderBeson-derung.in:Werk,BauenundWohnen,issue10/2002,

p.26–31.Schulze,Gerhard:DieErlebnisgesellschaft.Kultur-soziologiederGegenwart.FrankfurtamMain1997.

6 Bassand,MichelundHenz,Alexander(Ed.):DieZukunftdesWohnens.SchlussfolgerungendesETH-

Forschungsprojekts„Wohnen2000“.Zurich1994.7 Hoffmann-Axtheim, Dieter: Wohnen als fixe Idee. In:

Daidalos,issue60,6/96,p.30.8 Eichener Volker: Mobil bleiben! In Schader- Stiftung:

wohnwandel,Darmstadt2001,p.174–185.9 Brech, Joachim: Wohnbund – Informationen Heft 1/99:

WohnenundArbeiten.http://www.wohnbund.de/info0199_1.htm

10 StatistischesBundesamt:LebenundArbeiteninDeutschland–ErgebnissedesMikrozensus2004,Wiesbaden2005,p.44.

11 Hoffmann-Axtheim, Dieter: Wohnen als fixe Idee. In:Daidalos,issue60,6/96,p.41.

12 Empirca.Pressemitteilung7.10.2002.13 Bundesministerium fürWirtschaft undTechnologie (Ed.):

Informationsgesellschaft Deutschland. Innovation und Ar-beitsplaetze

16 Weigel,Doris:DieEinraumwohnungalsraeumlichesMani-festderModerne.Schliengen1996.

17 Spellerberg, Anette: Lebensstile und Wohnprofile:Trends.In:Schader-Stiftung(Ed.):Wohnwandel.Darmstadt,2001,p.276.

18 Jesberg,Paulgerd:KomplexitätderEinfachheit–ZumBauenvonAlderMichaelinBasel.In:DBZ,Issue10/98,p.73–80.

19 Dworschak,Gunda;Wenke,Alfred:ZukunftWohnen.Augs-burg1998,p.185.

20 Personal interview with Walter Ramseier, Partner of ADP,1991.

21 Parent, Claude: Architecture Principe 5. Juli 1966, quotedfrom:ClaudeParentunddieFolgen.Werk,Bauen+Woh-nen,issue11/2002,p.5.

Dipl.-Ing. Sigrid LochArchitektin,wissenschaftlicheMitarbeiterin,DoktorandinArchitect,Researchandteach-ingassistant,doctoralcandidate.UniversityofStuttgart,FacultyofArchitectureandUr-banPlanning,InstituteHousingandDesign

Author

life transforms living transforms life

Documents