Thesis - Exploring Cultural Friction - Establishing Archtecture for Dublin's Homeless Culture

Exploring Cultural Friction: Developing Architecture through Dublin’s Homeless Culture Alan Sherlock

Dublin School Of Architecture Dublin Institute of Technology Bolton Street, Dublin 1

History, Theory and Criticism & Thesis Design Studio Alan Sherlock 2013/2014

5

Contents Introduction 1 Defining Homeless Culture

1.1 Homeless Culture 1.2 Project I - Homeless Shelter

2 A social construction’s relationship to architecture 2.1 Social Contructionism 2.2 Project II- Services for the Homeless 3 Architecture and Culture through basic Human perception 4 Project Design 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Provisions of Health and Heat Binding of architectural ideas; Home for the Homeless Home in context; A contextual and social architecture Framing Homelessness 4.4 (I) Structuring a design methodology 4.4 (II) Project III - Semester I Final Design 4.5 Conclusion 5 Re-Framing a methodology 5.1 Design Part I - Homeless Appropriation 5.2 Design Part II - Placement: Debtors Prison Green Street 5.3 Design Part III 6 Conclusion 7 Bibliography & image references 8 Acknowledgements

6

7

Introduction Homelessness is a temporary life but a permanent condition.

It is a constant of our current society and is ever on the increase. However Homelessness is not an ‘issue’ to be resolved but a culture to be explored and facilitated.

“Too often vulnerable people were seen only as problems to be resolved through a “tick-box culture... Instead of services which meet the need of individuals, too often vulnerable people with complex needs were being asked to fit into onesize-fits-all support” Alice Leahy cofounder of Trust, a Dublin based homeless support centre. (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socialaffairs/homeless-people-being-failed-by-system-which-lackscompassion) My aim is to develop a civic architecture of permanency to acknowledge ‘street culture’ as a distinct culture in itself.

The architecture aims to create support in order to maintain a healthy quality of living for those who cannot or chose not to live in our culture. My work focuses around the development of a methodology that creates architecture sensitive to the needs of the homeless and remains aware of the cultural and social baggage carried by the ‘Homeless’ as well as my own cultural influences.

8

9

1

Defining Homeless Culture

Defining Homeless Culture

735 COUNSELLING SESSIONS TRANSITION PERIOD AND SUPPORT 3-9 MONTHS 69% SUCCESS

EMERGENCY

HIGH SUPPORT HOUSING ACCESED BY 50

NEED

3316 INDIVIDUAL CLIENT INTERVENTIONS

VOLUNTEER

NEEDLE EXCHANGE 2245 EXCHANGES 2012

ALONE

60 POLISH CITIZENS SLEEPING ROUGH

POTENTIAL

MOBILE HEALTH CLINIC 4192 PEOPLE ACCESSING SERVICE

CHARITY

3 WEEK PROGRAM WAS ACCESSED BY 150

4271 PER YEAR SLEEP ROUGH

66 REFERRALS TO 8 VOLUNTEER COUNSELLORS

SHELTER

SUPPORT

ACCOMODATION

PEAK OF 671 IN SEPTEMBER

SERVICES

MEDIUM SUPPORT HOUSING BY 36

VISITING SUPPORT STAFF, 50% OF CASES WERE CLOSED.

ISSUE

356 PER MONTH SLEEP ROUGH

OFFERING

THRESHOLD COMPLETION RATE FROM 10% TO 70%

ROUGH

HOMELESS

10

1,586 NURSING INTERVENTIONS OR 132 PER MONTHUNIQUE CLIENTS USED GP SERVICE

509 UNIQUE CLIENTS USED GP SERVICE 76,500 MEALS COUNTRY WIDE MEALS

SANDWICH AND SOUP SERVICE 4,323 CONTACTS

TEMPORARY

PERMANENT SOLUTION

24HR LOW THRESHOLD SERVICE ACCESSED BY 865

STEERING GROUP, 14 CLIENTS OF 54 SUCCESSFULLY REPATRIATED

APPROACH

Fig 1: These statistics are based on individual contact services use from the Simon Community support group. (http://www.dubsimon.ie/Homelessness/HomelessStatistics.aspx)

Defining Homeless Culture

11

1.

Defining Homeless culture

The statistics show the rising number of homeless in Dublin. They have developed a sub culture of their own, a culture of necessity and appropriation. This is a culture that inhabits and experiences Dublin in a way of its own and has a necessarily deep knowledge of the city as a facade, and the city as a system. It is an area of study which began early in the year with a study of re-appropriated space in the cultural quarter of the city. Along with their ingenuity with space, the attitudes towards what are commonly seen as ‘undesired people’ and the relationship between social agenda and architecture interested me.

Dan Lockton’s article on Discriminatory Architecture catalogues a series of ideas that influence behavior, like anti teenager pink lights to show up acne or anti homeless stools. Lockton critiques the obvious moral shortcomings. Micro- Geographies of Homelessness: A Guided Tour through Schoneberg, Berlin similarly explores social agendas. This physical tour aims to ‘challenge daily attitudes on these undesired people’.

Adolf Loos in his essay, Underclothes, Neue Freie Presse, September 25, 1898, further develops the idea of applied meaning and social separation through the idea of appearance as a defining factor in cultural classification and class association. He brings into question the merit of universal progress, where progress corresponds to a ‘new rung of human culture’ (Loos, A. 1898) that propagates a class difference through a cultural difference, suggesting that a failure to accept this progression is a failure to improve or develop. He notes the worth of holding onto personally significant values.

“Whoever finds woven material more comfortable than knit material let him continue to wear it forever, for it would be foolish to impose a form of culture on someone” (Loos. A, 1898)

¬¬Similarly, in the talk The Hidden World of Shadow Cities, Robert Neuwirth, outlines his experiences of Slum cities and the occupant driven culture and architecture that emerges. He emphasises their growing prominence and importance, without promoting the slum city as a positive development by referencing the immense poverty, sanitation, health, social, political and criminal issues surrounding them. Yet, he describes note worthy sociological aspects that emerge; the communities that form create their own governing bodies, districts and territories materialize. He highlights one example above others as a development of a functioning system in the slum cities of Istanbul, Sultanbelyi.

A progression of sub-culture as well architecture can be seen, from very basic huts, to homes of metal and timber scraps, to buildings of brick and mortar. Significantly, this is due to a governmental oversight, an old law, stating that a structure erected overnight cannot be removed or the residents evicted. This loop hole spawned a new architecture around what could have been perceived as a ‘buildingless’ sub-culture of slums.

Show the developments of the slum hut possibly diagrams “So, the question is how do you go from the mud-hut village, to the more developed city, to the even highly developed Sultanbelyi? I say there are two things. One is people need a guarantee they won’t be evicted. That does not necessarily mean property rights, yet they do need security of tenure. And they need access to politics, and that can mean two things. That can mean community organizing from below, but it can also mean possibilities from above.” (Neuwirth. R, 2010)

Fig 1 a. Adolf Loose Advertising endorsment

Fig 1 b Robert Neuwirth Slum cities informal economy

Defining Homeless Culture

12

Fig 1 c Merchants Quay Homeless statistics 2012

Fig 1 d Salvation Army Statistics 2012

Defining Homeless Culture

13

What I suggest as a culture of the homeless encompasses people that make use of the homeless services.

Like the slum cities, rules and norms are developed among the homeless and a culture forms; knowledge and etiquette associated with prime night shelters, begging territories, day hangouts, Gardaí patrol routes, limited services etc.

However, the separation of classes is an issue in the classification of homeless culture. Its merit is in question due to the impoverished conditions associated with it. As an architect, my exploration becomes about the support of the culture through architecture in a way that may encourage a progression from within the homeless culture, like the progress seen in the Turkish slums, rather than correcting the social, economic and impoverished conditions that lead to Homelessness.

Architecture must be humble. It cannot hope to solve issues like Homelessness but must be sensitive to it and above all acknowledge it.

Fig 1 e Slum City in Turkey

Project 1 - Homeless Shelter

14

Project 1 - Homeless Shelter

15

Project 1 – Informal City Group Emergency Shelter Brief: Night shelter for ‘Rough Sleepers’ Location: Henry Street The project was developed to test the relationship of pragmatic architecture and social opinion. The site was chosen due to the high activity of both homeless, at night, and the homed during the day. I proposed to modify standard advertisement billboards which are currently on the street, slightly increasing them in width, structurally reinforce them and install a crank system which allows the billboards to be opened at night.

Analysis The design was functionally driven. The use of the billboards created a dry space raised off the ground, which was heated by the bulbs of the lighting billboard. No relocation of billboards was necessary and each would increase in size and advertisement space.

Each billboard has an existing power supply if further heating is required. But more importantly security and maintenance would be somewhat catered for due to part ownership by the nearby shops, so the risk of misuse would be lessened.

The realization of a definite solution to my proposal as a fallacy ultimately sparked the final realization of the project. The aim shifted focus from a problem to be solved to a question to be asked. The design ultimately propagated a social critique. The crass way in which Homelessness would have been trust into one of Dublin’s bustling streets could not be over arched by functional sense. The project review focused on the clash of cultures, between the high-end perfume poster and the downtrodden that would be sheltered by it.

The critique immediately sidelined the practical benefits and focused on the social representation of the project. Intent was implied devoid of the original brief, solidifying the importance of a social and symbolic agenda.. The ‘homeless issue’ required further understanding as a cultural term as well as a more clever approach to it.

Project 1 - Homeless Shelter

16

Fig 1 (f) The existing billboard application drawings approved by the Dublin City Council.

Project 1 - Homeless Shelter

17

Fig 1(g) Proposed billboard and diagram of folding system.

Project 1 - Homeless Shelter

18

Fig 1(h) Map showing Homeless day hang outs

Fig 1 (i ) Map showing Homeless rough sleeper locations

Project 1 - Homeless Shelter

19

Fig 1(k) Proposed billboard design - Day

Fig 1(k) Proposed billboard design - Night

20

21

2

Social Contruction and Architecture

Social Construct and Architecture

22

Fig 2(a) Diagram showing effect Social Construct on society

Social Construct and Architecture

23

2.

A social construction’s relationship to architecture.

How can architecture develop from an inherently social agenda? A theoretical stance suggests a development of architecture through a study of social construction.

Homeless culture can then be seen as a social construct, an idea realized by a collective group of similar experiential understanding.

“Clearly people from different social and community backgrounds will see the world in rather different ways. The reality of the world, therefore, becomes implicated in matters of perception, symbolism and the symbolic order of knowledge” (http://www.sagepub. com/upm-data/9412_009692ch2.pdf) The idea of a social construct considers the separation of reality and the understanding of it, the subject and the object as social construction is not ‘natural’ reality (something produced by nature), but rather ‘subject’ derived conceptions.

However, a divide remains. As I am an architect and I am not homeless, my design of a true architecture of homeless culture is problematic as these constructs are based on ‘social choices, rather than laws resulting from human judgement and essentialism’ (http:// en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Social_constructionism). As I have not made similar social choices, the ‘subject’ derived homeless condition is one in which I am not part of. So how then is it possible to design for the homeless without forcing an architectural agenda on them?

The ongoing debate of social constructionism is to do with its universal application. Paul A Boghossian’s Essay ‘What is Social Construction’ examines a series of miss uses of social construction as a universal theory.

He emphasises clarity of obvious social constructs like money, citizenship and newspapers and explains the difficulties of applying the same terminology and though to a ‘belief ’. In doing this the clear structure of society that is necessary to social construction needs to affect all aspects of existence to remain wholly true. It is obviously problematic to suggest such a pervasive structure could exist therefore he breaks down social construction into separate claims each with a distinct validation.

Each claim can be seen as ‘transcendentally idealistic’. This heavily ‘subject’ driven view claims ‘that we impose structure on the world’. The mind-independent world, separate to the subject, breaks down when applied to the ‘object’ or the physical, as the object is ‘independent’ in of itself, then the subject’s realization of the object is socially dependant, but how then can the object be validated as true or specifically real if the subject views may vary or where one may even disclaim the objects existence.

‘The intuitive view is that there is a way things are that is independent of human opinion, and that we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their ideological perspective.’ (Boghossian. A, 2001) With regard to homeless culture the classification of it as a social construction allows for a separation of the term Homelessness to that of the physical condition.

The reality of someone living on the streets may occur without society; however some of the consequences of living on the street with regard to society, social segregation, are social constructs that are encompassed by the term ‘Homeless’. Without society Homelessness would not exist.

In a way the physical can be seen as the link between cultures alluding to a process of design through the ‘way things are that is independent of human opinion’.

But it is naive to suggest a ‘homeless architecture’ independent of human opinion. This must be accepted in order to progress. Accepting the difficulties inherent in creating ‘homeless architecture’ suggests that the more architecture can be reduced to its ‘basics’ (impossible though it may be) the less socially charged it becomes.

Homelessness as a social construct is more of a belief based association, the focused now shifted to stripping architecture to its essentials, the basic provision of service to satisfy a need.

Social Construct and Architecture

24

Fig 2(d) Map of City services

Fig 2(d) Map of Homeless Services

Fig 2(d) Map of proposed sites

Social Construct and Architecture

25

Project II Brief: Ribbon of civic buildings.

Description An initial concept was to activate the homeless in the city by creating a network of linked services through a ribbon of buildings through the city. The idea focused on strengthening the civic presence of homeless in the city through a service based activity. This approach was in response to the stereotyped view of homeless; an issue that was consistently raised in ‘Some kind of Life’ a short documentary of interviews on homeless of Peterborough (UK).

A simple survey was done on the huge variety of services required and available to the Homeless in comparison to mainstream services. From this four building types were developed each with a separate function prevalent to homeless life. Four sites were selected close to the area of study (the Cultural Quarter) based on proximity to existing services.

Analysis On reflection the ‘activation’ of the city in this way wasn’t sensitive to homeless culture, but an application of my experience of the city on others. It looked to replace their uniquely subtle civic presence. The more research that was done on services and building typologies made more clear the extent to which the homeless are already active in the city. As a project it became too much about the rearranging of facilities and not the exploration of the Homeless unique interaction with the city. I need a further reduction in though.

Site A: 46 O'Connell Street upper Financial, legal and political aid building.

This building will provide a service for those who are in need of any kind of financial, legal or immigration needs.

Site 2. Corner of Parnell St & Moore Lane: Health, Drugs and Addiction Clinic This clinic will function as a first response unit, a 24hr medical facility, as well as a drop in centre for addicts

Site 3. Granby Park Upper Soup Kitchen and Community Centre A community centre based around the Granby pop up park will also function as a first response facility with hot water showers and a soup kitchen. It will also house an information centre and processing offices.

Site4. St Mary's Place North Education and Family Resource Building This will house a number of educational services for people of all conditions as well as a family and young adult counselling and information service.

Fig 2(e) proposed sites

Social Construct and Architecture

26

Site A

Site B

Social Construct and Architecture

27

Site C

Site D

Culture / Basic Human Perception

28

Fig 3(a) above- Social Space Diagram Fig 3(b) left - Edward T Hall - The Hidden Dimension

Culture / Basic Human Perception

29

3.

Architecture and Culture through basic Human perception The designing of typologies and rearranging of services is not architecture. An architectural agenda must be established. A common thread needed to be found between that of my cultural experiences and that of Homeless, so that I was no longer designing through the way I see things based on my specific experiences, but shared cultural experience.

Research fixed on developing an architectural model for basic human interaction. The idea of symbolism and perception and of physical needs must then be mediated. Edward T Hall, an anthropologist writes about the basics of human nature and physical environment as fundamental liking cultures. Hall, in The Hidden Dimension 1966, coined the phrase ‘Proxemics’ which can be defined as “the interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture”(T. Hall, E, 1966) Hall deals with the ‘structure of experience as it is moulded by culture’ raising the argument that the cultural differences and friction between people is natural and that the realization of this fact is social progression. The comprehension of a cultural difference becomes the topic of study. He tracks the development of the human senses and how they influence the very basic spatial decisions we make, outlining four main distances of social interaction.

From this Hall draws various conclusions by comparison of his own experiences of different cultures. He outlines distinctions between, social distances, customs, upbringing and communication to show a merit in each relative to each specific culture. Each of these distinctions is then linked back to fundamental differences in sensorial perception, mainly defined by region or nationality. Hall’s breakdown of culture into a natural, instinctual experience touches on a development of an applied cultural meaning.

Once fundamentals of culture were realized, a process of structuring design boundaries began. The project needed to develop a building, a permanent part of the city and of homeless culture. Firstly, a brief needed to be developed through the primary needs and requirements of that culture. The project still required to offer a service that improved the quality of life of the homeless, making clear its inability to ‘solve the problem’. Not to promote Homelessness, but accept it.

Heat and Health

30

  



                            

     

  

 

 





       

                               

 

Fig 4 (c) Riverbank Clinic

Fig 4 (b) Riverbank Clinic Schedule

Heat and Health

31

4.

Provision of Health and Heat

Typology development Case Study: Merchants Quay Ireland Homeless and Drug Services; Riverbank Clinic, Merchants Quay, Dublin 8

suggests a development of Heat, in form of shelter, and Health, in the form of a service as primary themes.

Each is a human necessity, a basic requirement for survival and in the case of Homelessness, necessities that are lacking. For example, the statistics provided detail the high user rates concentrated around first response units, mainly health and basic service units (2,245 needle exchanges and 4,323 contacts made from the sandwich and soup service) the demand of each is specific, different and important. Health and Heat now became the core architectural tools of the project.

A study was carried out on the existing building types and services available in the Dublin area. Riverbank Day Clinic was selected as a typology template in which I could base my developing architecture around.

It is a low threshold day service for homeless. It has medical facilities as well as food services, counselling rooms and a referral system. Most notably, it provides a space for homeless to hang out in during the day, something that appears unique to Riverbank. Not designing a space for the homeless to sleep in seemed a fitting way to acknowledge a problem, by providing support services that allow the culture to be maintained and hopefully progress.

Developing architecture needs more than the services that the building type makes available. Riverbank clinic provides for two basic needs, Health services and physical day shelter. Simplifying these further they are based around the combination of primitive needs and a move away from applied cultural meaning. This

Fig 4 (a) Drawing by service user on the notice board at the Riverbank Clinic

Heat and Health

32

Fig 4(d) Panorama of the lounge are and kitchen for the Riverbank Clinic

Heat and Health

33

Fig 4(e) Smoking Area

Fig 4(f) Medical Area Waiting room

Fig 4(g) Neddle Exchange office lacking storage facilities

Heat and Health

34

          

  

                  

Fig 4(h) Typology studies on Homeless services that look to combine a unique architectural element

Heat and Health

35





 

 

            

     

Fig 4(i) Typology Studies of civic building with robust tectonics

    

Heat and Health

36

Heat and Health

37

4.1

Health

‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (E.R.C.M. Huismana, E. Moralesb, J. van Hoofa, H.S.M. Korta, c, 2012) could us this later on So then what constitutes a health building? The article ‘Healing environment: A review of the impact of physical environmental factors on users’ selected a series of papers published on the findings on environmental factors in health care buildings, in terms of patients, end users and staff. It proposes that ‘Evidence-based design has become the theoretical concept for what are called healing environments’. After breaking the papers down, the main topics dictating environmental factors were listed, see Fig 4.1 (a) ‘The hypothesis is that healing environments, through EBD, make hospitals less stressful and promote faster healing for patients and improve well-being for their families, as well as creating a pleasant, comfortable and safe work environment for staff ’ (E.R.C.M. Huismana, E. Moralesb, J. van Hoofa, H.S.M. Korta, c, 2012)

Innate in this identifying of topics and subtopics is architecture of itself. The topics can be used as a structure to base the design of the environment, dictating materials, ventilation, organization, jurisdiction of space, orientation acoustics etc. The paper also summarizes potential solutions, like the use of carpet as a texturally enriching and non-slip material, that when designed correctly can overcome its infection absorbing nature. This example suggests the importance of mental health on design decisions i.e. the choosing of a practically weak option for its phenomenological nature.

‘When Buildings don’t work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health’ begins to describe in broader terms the extent of architecture on the mental health of users, particularly focusing on stress. ‘The proposition that stress significantly contributes to physical health is well established (Cohen et al., 1995)’. The paper proposes that there is a link between ‘architectural dimension and stress’ Again, the factors influencing this are broken into a list; Stimulation, Coherence, Affordance, Control, Restorative qualities.

‘Stimulation describes the amount of information in a setting or object that impinges upon the user. Intensity, variety, complexity, mystery and novelty...’ It is suggested that the over stimulation of the user can cause disorientation and increase stress levels’ (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998). Nonetheless, an adequate amount of stimulation must occur to interest or distract the user (there is a theory that the distraction of a patient during treatment, e.g. with a view of nature, has stress and pain reducing qualities, this is known as Distraction Theory)

Fig 4.1 (a) Breakdown of architectural factor effecting environmental conditions (E.R.C.M. Huismana, E. Moralesb, J. van Hoofa, H.S.M. Korta, c, 2012)

Heat and Health

38

Fig 4.1 (b) Example of overstimulation (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

Fig 4.1 (c) Example of confusing space due to the lack of information i.e. door use is unclear (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

Fig 4.1 (d) Example of retreat space with a view to the exterior (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

Fig 4.1 (e) Example of an unclear space. Little can be seen beyond the corridor (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

Heat and Health

39

‘Coherence refers to the clarity or comprehensibility of building elements and form. Ambiguity, disorganization, and disorientation are major impediments to coherence.’ (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998) Affordance describe the way in which we ‘utilize spaces according to our understanding of functions that they provide us’ (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998). Ambiguity and misinformation in this regard can increase stress levels. Building layouts should be easily negotiable and obvious; doors and windows should be easy to operate.

Control seems the most interesting and most pertinent to a building for the homeless. ‘Prolonged experiences with uncontrollable environmental conditions have also been associated with learned helplessness (Cohen et al., 1986).’ Individually controlled aspects, e.g. light, ventilation, heat, promote independence and self satisfaction.

‘Restorative qualities define the potential of design to function therapeutically, reducing cognitive fatigue and other sources of Stress’ (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998) Fig 4 (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998) Stimulus shelters provide opportunities for solitude and a chance to get away from over stimulating situations or routines of work and daily life Such spaces may buffer stress by providing a temporary respite; a time out from prolonged or high levels of environmental demands or stressors. (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

4.1

Heat

Similarly the necessity of heat has its own distinct architecture. On a basic level it deals with the physical; Shelter from rain and protection from the cold to maintain health. However, the idea of a heat generating source has always been tied to social architecture, the idea a Hearth.

‘The hearth has been not only the functional centre of the house where all cooking, water-heating and so on was done but also the social centre, where the family sat around in the evenings in due order, where the honoured guest was given a place, where tales were told and songs sung, the news passed and the decisions taken.’ (Danaher, K. 1975 pg45).

Danaher describes the traditional role of a Hearth and front room in Ireland. It was the social epicenter of Irish living, in particular rural Ireland. The Irish vernacular of rural cottages orientated itself around the Hearth, usually consisting of an open fire place becoming the social epicenter of the household.

The hearth, as well as being socially constructed is symbolically significant. As Martin Heidegger advocates, it can be viewed as a phenomenological experience.

‘Here the self-sufficiency of the power to let earth, sky, divinities and mortals enter in simple oneness into things ordered the house.’(cited by Sharr, A. 2006 pg67)

Fig 4.1 (f) Irish Hearth Danaher K. 1975

Home for the H-omeless

40

Home for the Homeless

41

4.2 Binding of architectural ideas; Home for the Homeless The strength of dividing architecture into two main themes is in their coming together. A health based architecture of rigour and sanitation contrasted with the raw and human nature of heat needs something to bind and ground it as well as a social and physical context. In the case of the homeless, paradoxically, it needs to become a home.

‘The psychological focus on the concept of home can be explored in terms of inherited `ways of seeing’ (Berger, 1972)’. Jean Moore’s ‘Placing home in context’ explores the idea of home as it developed psychologically within Western contemporary society. It argues that there is ‘a movement away from identifying core sites of meaning, towards a context-sensitive focus on the experience and use of home’. In doing so a new avenue of the investigation of ‘home’ is suggested in lieu of psychology that ‘tended to focus more on the experiential and personal aspects of home than the social and cultural aspects’ Moore’s goal is to broaden the discussion on home, with an emphasis on its relationship to context Moore notes the historically constructed theories of home and the heavy influence of classification and description through lists of categories and criteria (a fact that is questioned as a complete methodology when dealing with empirical evidence) The criteria focused on the concept of domesticity, privacy, comfort and family as the main achievements of home. This method is in contrast to the socially constructed homeless situation, it implies ‘that a home is as much about exclusion as inclusion: having a home denotes, at the same time, those who do not have a home’.

‘Somerville (1997) examined the meanings of home and suggested seven dimensions of meaning: shelter; hearth; heart; privacy; roots; abode and paradise (the ideal). He based these on a phenomenological approach and concluded that a unification of phenomenological and sociological approaches represents the most promising way forward in home studies.’ Moore studies the idea of placing home in this sense. She draws upon the Theory of Place Attachment, which shows a person’s bond to a place due to objective criteria like satisfaction, involvement, length of stay, social networks etc.

And the Theory of Place Identity, where a place ‘forms part of the self identity’ of the individual.

‘This supports wider calls for a greater focus on the context of home, and development of a contextual understanding of the concept of home which transcends the material characteristics of domestic space’ (cited by Moore, J. 2000) A move away from the idea of home as ‘domestic house’ is required. The context of the city becomes part of the ‘home’ in a very literal way. The idea then becomes to see an urban ‘home’ as an extension of the urban dwelling rather than ‘home’ in its entirety.

Fig 4.2 (a) Art piece in California. Welcome mats were place around the city to promote awareness of homeless

Home in context

42

Fig 4.3 (b) Heidegger In his Hut

Home in contexts

43

4.3 Home in context; A mediation between contextual and social architecture

How do you create a home for the homeless and in what way does context relate to it?

Placing of a building raises questions with regard to context. First of all the site must be in an area appropriate to the building and use, and the surrounding area must be a factor in the building design. Programming affects the use of immediate neighboring areas. Context and society must be considered. The mediation between a social and contextual architecture becomes a new factor in the design. The contextual architecture comes with as much baggage as the social side with regards to restraints and opportunities.

Heidegger’s other residences, in particular his urban apartment. It seems he saw his hut as a haven, away from the modernized urban environment. Hertzberger differentiated the idea of dwelling into a broader term than what it has come to be known.

‘The real dwelling plight lies in this, that mortals ever search anew for the nature of dwelling, that they must ever learn to dwell What if man’s Homelessness consisted in this, that man still does not even think of the real plight of dwelling as the plight? Yet as soon as man gives thought to his Homelessness, it is a misery no longer.’ (Heidegger, M. 1971)¬The project was not realized fully in the sense of ‘Dwelling’ as Heidegger poetically describes. A further level of framing was necessary of the considerations made this far; self (the homeless), building (designed with Heat and Health) and place (Dublin city)

In ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’, the idea of dwelling is an act placing the self, building and place in equal measure. Heidegger’s description of dwelling is said to be forgotten in our habitual nature. He sees the phenomenological as the essence of dwelling, by bringing the essence of the fourfold into things (the fourfold is his description of experience) ‘Things like such locations shelter or house men’s lives.

Things of this sort are housings, though not necessarily dwelling-houses in the narrower sense.’ (Heidegger, M. 1971) In ‘Heidegger’s Hut’, Sharr draws attention to the importance of the solitude of the hut and the affinity experienced by Heidegger to the location. He did not just passively gaze upon the surrounding hills and forest, he actively experienced it. The building and place influenced his writings, the over arching ideas of ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ explores the sense of oneness he felt with the place. It is worth mentioning

Fig 4.3 (a) Heidegger In his Hut

44

45

4.4

Final Project Semester 1 - Framing Homeless Culture

Framing Homeless Culture

46





4.4 (I) Framing Homeless Culture Georgian architecture was chosen to re-frame the pragmatic and functional architecture provided for the homeless who are usually dealt with from within an institutional frame of mind and provide structure for the development of a Homeless ‘Dwelling’ in the city.

Being hugely prominent in the focus area, it seemed a suitable framework to push against.

Framing Homeless Culture

47

                



      The simple rigid structure and clear hierarchy of space    gave narrowed the focus. More importantly, Georgian    buildings have a prominence in the city. Their locations     and conditions vary enormously and as a result are   viewed in different lights, some more prestigious than  

 

          

others in rag order. There is an expectation of a Geor-   gian house and a stigma attached to them, whether   positive or negative. Architecturally, it is very difficult    to argue to reinvent them as their design is pragmatic.  They work well. 



  

 The difficulty lied in the mediation of the socially   driven homeless architecture and a its attachment to a   long standing embassador of Dublin, In order to give a   sense of privilege or at least ownership to the home-   less.  

 

 

‘To Build is to limit... Once limits are established... it is  crucial those who build them do it with great atten   tion in order to place them in such a way as to avoid    conflicts and suffering’ (Von Miess, P. 1986)

Fig 4.4 (a) Georgian Town House Axonometric

Fig 4.4 (b) Georgian Town House Elevation

  

    

     

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

48

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

49

4.4 (II) Project III Brief Homeless Day and Medical Center Reception First Response meeting rooms Counselling rooms Multipurpose room Meeting rooms Lounge Smoking areas Soup Kitchen Service Counter Male and Female W/C Medical waiting area Doctors office X-ray room Dentist office Nurse office Needle Exchange Staff room Offices Staff W/C Storage Disable access lift

The main aims of the building were to create a warm and secure place for the homeless to occupy during the day as well as providing services to maintain health.

The living area were seen as social space and were connected vertically by two stair. The generous primary stair connected the front and back of the building on the upper levels, from ground up at half levels, as the floor plates for each side are staggered vertically. The idea was to increase ease of access to the upper levels as the primary services, like the bathrooms, showers rooms and soup kitchen were at the lower basement levels and the more involved services, like counselling rooms, multifunction room and meeting rooms were situated on the upper levels. Social break out landings and space were dotted along the stair.

The secondary stairs, served as both a fire escape and a private stairs. Control is important in a building like this with respect to medical facilities. A drop in Needle exchange is located on the ground floor. With the other more private medical services on the first and second floors. Theses areas can be accessed by the secondary stairs, and if necessary can be access my the main stairs.

Fig 4.4 (c) Meeting of Georgian Dublin and Rough Sleepers

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

50

Fig 4.4 (e) Site Location Map - Gardiner Place

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

51

The site was a vacant site on Gardiner Place, close to Mountjoy Square (homeless activity had been linked to the square) I employed the breakdown and hierarchy of rooms, extension of spaces, like that of the entrance hall as street, stair as focal point and arrangement of spaces fit to the prominence of social application, e.g. the grand scale of the entertaining room on the first floor, or the modest attic spaces usually reserved for the servants. The juxtaposition of the Georgian period archetype and that of my own on developing architecture for the homeless was interesting in contrast.

The second entrance lies to the side of the building.

The building ends the terrace, however it still leave a gap between it and the terrace facing Merrion Square.

Historical maps show that this area had always remained not built. Furthermore, the area became a small public space that eased the threshold between the building and street. The gardened space slopes down to basement level where the building use is informal. The services are basic and can be less controlled than that of the medical area.

Initial site sketches and strategies began with simple facade drawings. The facade being the most obviously prominant feature of a Georgian terrace, was one of the main design challenges. The studies looked at ways of representing a new archetype without defacing a very prominant street face. But, it was important to be somewhat individual in order to raise the profile of the homeless.

Functionally, the choice of the site was due to the proximity to that of the park and the size and attributes of the site which suited the developing brief. One important feature of the Riverbank centre was a duel entrance. This was a necessity for the building.

The site strategy revolves around this dual access.

Firstly, there is duel access to the site, the ‘back garden’ of the site can be accessed by a lane, an provides a service entrance straight into the kitchen if needed.

Secondly there are two entrances. The entrance on the front facade caters for the medical services. It is a quick way to enter and exit the building that can be easily controlled. The nature of the needle exchange and the medical facilities requires this.

Fig 4.4 (d) Concept Sketches for Initial esign Approach

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

52

Fig 4.4 (e) North East View of Gardiner Place

Fig 4.4 (f) South west View of Gardiner Place

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

53

Fig 4.4 (g) Rear entrance to site

Fig 4.4 (h) rear entrance to site

in Ireland

 

in Ireland (SARI)

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

54

   

- 17 -

- 19 -

Infection Prevention and Control Building Guidelines for Acute Hospitals in Ireland

HPSC

Infection Prevention and Control Building Guidelines for Acute Hospitals in Ireland

Infection Prevention and Control Building Guidelines for Acute Hospitals in Ir

A Strategy for the Control of Antimicrobial Resistance in Ireland

SARI

  

A Strategy for the Control of

p

   

Antimicrobial of Resistance in Ireland SARI Appendix 3: Examples ward layouts, comprising 100% single rooms, and single room designs Note: the following drawings are diagrammatic or schematic only and are included for the purpose of illustration. They are not intended to be scaled or used as exact proposals.

Infection Prevention and Control Building Guidelines for Acute Hospitals in Ireland Strategy for the control of Antimicrobial Resistance in Ireland (SARI)

Note: the following drawings are diagrammatic o illustration. They are not intended to be scaled or

     Infection Prevention and Control Building Guidelines for Acute Hospitals in Ireland Strategy for the control of Antimicrobial Resistance in Ireland (SARI)

        

        

   

Appendix 3: Examples comprising 100% sing room designs

   

        

Typical single room  

-

+HDOWK %XLOGLQJ 1RWH 3DUW % :DOOV DQG FHLOLQJV

- 17 -

- 19 -

Fig 4.4 (i) - Diagram of Hospital Design

+HDOWK %XLOGLQJ 1RWH 3DUW % :DOOV DQG FHLOLQJV

p

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

55

Health The influence of health aspect of design was base on two different areas, the phenomenological attributes on mental well being and the physical requirements of medical facilities.

The phenomenological aspect influenced mainly the basic architectural moves. The positioning of windows, views to the park, location of trees in the public area, opening up of the south facing ‘ garden side’ to flood the building with light in some social areas.

The health and sanitation aspect became an interesting study mainly based around material and surface. The mediation between a tactile, sensually pleasant material and one that met the health standards associated with medical space was something that was not dealt with well at Riverbank Clinic.

Robust materials, where chosen sheer necessary, less porous materials were used in the medical rooms and bathrooms, while timber linings, exposed brick and carpet were checkered along the main stairway landings and lounge rooms.

Fig 4.4 (j) - Concept model of material treatment. a robust tactile exterior with a seemless sanitary interior

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

56

Fig 4.4 (k) - Concept Model of Masonry Oven & design sketche for tspace created around them

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

57



Heat Designing through heat became a complimentary idea to the main stair. They made up the two main vertical design elements. This was done with the introduction of a masonry stove oven, (Kachelofen). These wood burning brick stoves, use a small fire box to intesitfy the heat of the fire, increasing fuel efficiency and reducing the emissions. The fire box is cased in a large masonry mass. This absorbs the heat from the fire and radiates heat over a long period of time. Furthermore, the smoke and exhaust fumes are channeled through a series of brick chamber, further heating the brick and increasing efficiency before being expelled through the flue.

The huge mass of the stove becomes a structural element that helps span 12 metres from gable wall to gable wall, where it is located it decreases the distances to 5 meters and 8 meters allowing for standard domestic construction.

Each main social space is linked by the stove, ultimately ending at the roof garden. The Stove becomes a hearth for the building, a focal point that orientates users from any point in the building.

Kachelofen Design Materials; Soapstone, brick, concrete foundations, ceramic tile.

Size dictated by heat requirements. Large stoves can heat up to 300m2 building. Small combustion chamber if fed through a glass or metal door with an air control. Multiple clean outs may be required depending on the style of design being used i.e Russian, Finnish, German etc. Each has a unique flue system.

Fig 4.4 (l) - Heat diagrams showing the extent of the Masonry Oven radiant heat and combining it with underfloor heating

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

58

Fig 4.4 (m) - Georgian Chimney and fie place types

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

59

Fig 4.4 (n) - Diagrams of masonary stoves

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

60

Fig 4.4 (o) - View of the vacant site on Gardiner Street

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

61

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

62

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

63

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

64

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

65

Fig 4.4 (p) - Site Section A-A

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

66

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

67

Fig 4.4 (q) - Site Section B-B

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

68



Project III - Homeless Day Centre

69

Fig 4.4 (r) - Site Elevation

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

70

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

71

Fig 4.4 (s) - Section

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

72

Project III - Homeless Day Centre

73

Conclusion This is basically a set up to the final project.

In summation, the aim of the study should be clear, to examine the socially constructed sub culture of Homelessness in contrast to inherent contrasting factors; the friction between cultures that share a contextual and societal realm and the problematic nature of developing architecture from a purely social topic, Homelessness.

Similarly, it should be evident the mixed methodology I have used. Due to the varying nature of the knowledge needed, both empirical and theoretical, I have structured arguments beginning with a clear delineation of either theoretical or empirical origins and introducing the importance of both as relevant.

The introduction of evidence based research, statistics and case studies will then be used as mitigating factors, employed to ground the argument and if necessary suggest hierarchy among the empirical or theoretical evidence discussed.

74

75

5

Final Project - Re-examining a Methadology

Study - Homeless Appropriation

76

Study - Homeless Appropriation

77

5.1

Study - Homeless Appropriation

What is an architect’s role in this? Intuitively the homeless seem devoid of architecture. They have no dwelling. However, their relationship to architecture and the city is intensified if anything. Their knowledge of street corners, sheltered building nooks and niches is a necessity. Facade openings and protrusions become shelters and beds. But how is this quantified and how is architecture developed from it?

The next was to examine the use of space by homeless in the city. A study was carried out on Parnell Square and its surrounding area. More than 20 locations were mapped and surveyed. Each location marked a rough sleeping spot for the homeless. Mainly consisting of shop doorways, deep faced overhangs, service and fire exit doorways, the aim was to analyze the spaces and their intended use in relation to re-appropriation by citizens, not only the homeless, in an attempt to draw fundamental rules of space making and link the homeless and the homed appropriation of space.

Fundamentals were drawn under the following headings; orientation, shelter, privacy, activity and safety.

Study Of Spaces An early study on the re-appropriation of spaces for sleeping in the city now became the driving force behind the project. It is the only piece of architectural research that has come wholly from homeless culture.

The way in which they occupy space in unique. The building becomes an extension of the urban dwelling, The study was conducted through day observations on the activity of homeless people. Criteria were established to define active inhabitation of a location. Signs of inhabitation were noted as, physical presence, material presence. Study locations were surveyed and cast models made of selected locations.

Selected locations list Study Criteria 1.Shelter 2.Footfall 3.security 4.aspect 5.privacy

Fig 5.1 (a) - Cast Models of two study spaces

Study - Homeless Appropriation

78

Fig 5.1 (c) - Selection of areas studied

Study - Homeless Appropriation

79

Henrietta Place

Henrietta Place

Privacy

Privacy

Safety f

Safety f

Privacy

Footfall 1 Footfall

1

4

4

6

6

8

8

4

6

8

10

0

2

2 3 9 8 1

8

6

8

10

4

6

8

10

f Safety Footfall

Shelter PrivacyAspect‐Light Footfall Safety f Safety f Safety Footfall 1 FootfallPrivacy Aspect‐LightAspect‐Light

4 2 9 8 1

2

4

10

Aspect‐Light

Shelter

Shelter

0

2

6

8

10

0

2

4

Forever 21, Mary Street

Privacy

Privacy

Safety f

Safety f

4

6

6

8

8

10

6

8

0

10

2 3 9 8 1

2

4

Shelter Aspect‐Light Footfall Safety Privacy

1

6

8

1

0

10

2

4

Hardwick Street Flats

6

8

10

Malborough Street

Henrietta Place 9 2 9 8 1

6

8

10

0

1

Footfall

1

Shelter

0

2

10 Fig 5.1 (b) - Data Collected

4

6

8

10

St. Michans Street

2

4

6

M&S Mary Street

Privacy

Aspect‐LightAspect‐Light

4

4

6 5 8 3 1

Frederick Lane North

Shelter Aspect‐Light Footfall Safety Privacy

1

f Safety Footfall

8

10

0

2

4

Clark's Henry Street

Henrietta Place

Shelter

1

Shelter Aspect‐Light Footfall Safety Privacy

9.5 3 7 2 0.5

1

Shelter

0

Footfall

f Safety Footfall

Henrietta Place

Shelter Aspect‐Light Footfall Safety Privacy

1

Privacy

Aspect‐Light

Henrietta Place

Privacy

2 3 2 2 8

Black Church

Henrietta Place

Shelter

4

2

Henrietta Place

Shelter Aspect‐Light Footfall Safety Privacy

6

Shelter

10

Henrietta Place

4

Aspect‐Light

Shelter

0

10

1

Footfall

Aspect‐LightAspect‐Light Shelter

Privacy

Safety

Shelter Aspect‐Light Footfall Safety Privacy

6

8

10

0

2

4

Arnotts Henry Street

6

8

10

Stall on Moore Street

Henrietta Place

Shelter Aspect‐Light Footfall Safety Privacy

7 2 2 2 7

Privacy f Safety

1

Footfall

Shelter Aspect‐Light Footfall Safety Privacy

9.5 3 7 2 0.5

Privacy

1

f Safety

1

Footfall

Aspect‐Light

Aspect‐Light

Aspect‐Light

Shelter

Shelter

Shelter

0

2

4

6

8

10

LIDL Moore Street

0

2

4

6

8

Lots Lane

0

2

4

6

8

10

Penny's O'connel street

0

2

4

6

8

10

jervis Lane Uppere

Study - Homeless Appropriation

80

Study - Homeless Appropriation

81

-Analysis Results.

1.

There was coupling of criteria in relation to user preference, safe places with high footfall sacrifice privacy and overall shelter. Light and aspect play a small role in night time occupation. Security and shelter seem the most important aspects closely followed by privacy. Areas of uses with good cover and shelter tend to be in more private areas.

2.

Materiality of spaces hugely varied. Main constituents were obvious, brick, stone, concrete, but additional items were introduced, sleeping bags, cardboard bedding, and election posters and in one case an old mattress had been pushed into a service door alcove. Other materials were mainly elements like metal doors, glass facades. Little material comfort was evident other than the additional items used as bedding.

3.

The majority of areas remained temporary.

After a few days in most cases evidence of use had been removed. In some cases, like those on found on Henry Street, no evidence of occupation was left, due to its high activity each day. However, some locations with high levels of privacy and shelter remained in use for weeks. One area in particular, Henrietta Place, remains occupied and has been cleaned out on a number of occasions only to be used again.

4.

Possession of some areas seemed to be marked. In a number of locations cardboard and clothing were left during the day. Frederick Lane North was a location were 3 similar gateways for car parking garages were being occupied, but interestingly, next to the gates were two long slots in the wall for ventilation of the car park below which were used as sleeping bag and bedding material storage.

5.

Space dimensions were very consistent across the survey. A minimum depth of shelter of 900mm was observed with the average at roughly 1100mm.

This approximation occurs in almost all of the space with some exceptions, like that of Arnott’s entrance Henry Street. Length of spaces could be divided into two categories; Doorways, that had varying widths and were generally inconsistent on the whole, and back of house spaces that showed more consistency. Doorways were often in public areas and could be classed into service doorways and public entrances, i.e. shop fronts.

The back of house spaces seemed more carefully chosen and had similar dimensions.

6.

Generally each space consisted of 3 walls; One long backing wall and two short side walls. A number of spaces, like that of Lotts lane consisted of two backing walls. In the case of Lotts Lane, the angle created was slightly obtuse and came at an intersection of two building. Shelter was provided by an angle wall above that continued one of the building edges from the first floor upwards.

7.

Odor became a strong indication of use. Used spaces often had strong smell. Some of these were due to positioning near building exhaust vents and air-conditioning units. More permanent area, Like Henrietta Street, had more distinct smell that could be attributed to the items left, mainly refuse.

8.

Sanitation levels, as you would expect, were very low. The spaces, apart from Henry Street, seemed not to be areas that needed cleaning for day use and as a result were often stained due to use. Luckily one area was found off a main street that had been re-appropriated as a toilet. Unfortunately, I was able to observe at least four different occurrences of faeces, with traces of toilet paper adjacent.

9.

On the whole, locations that were more

private and concealed seemed to be more carefully selected than the more public and more secure areas. The public spots were less permanent and as a result of day use better kept.

Study - Homeless Appropriation

82

Fig 5.1 (c) - Cast Model of Forever 21 Henry Street

Fig 5.1 (d) - Cast Models of Arnotts Main Door Henry street

Fig 5 .1 (e) - Cast Models of Clarks’s main entrance Henry Street

Study - Homeless Appropriation

83

Fig 5.1 (f) - Cast Models of Service Vents Bolton Street

Fig 5.1 (g) - Cast Models of M&S Service door Henry Street

Fig 5.1 (h) - Cast Models of Lotts Lane

Placement: Debtors Prison

84

Fig 5.2 (a) Site Location Map

Relationship to Parnell Square 1:3000

Placement: Debtors Prison

85

5.2

Placement: Debtors Prison Green Street

The outlined headings were then employed as primary design tools. However, the reality of this kind of design is problematic. Maintenance, day time usage, prominence in the city and acceptance were additional problems which do not exist in the re-appropriation of the studied space as the spaces had already been in place and were selected through a process eliminating these factors. The greatest obstacle became that of acceptance. Social problems and baggage associated with Homelessness hindered the selection of a site, form and influenced perceived intent.

The brief had changed focus also. The project required sleeping space a decision I had chosen to avoid for the first semester. A study of spaces that homeless sleep in requires a design that provides a place to sleep. In this way the brief now changed to incorporate rough sleepers. It became an emergency hostel that could also be used throughout the day.

This led to a short revision of the previous services mapping done, to find a location that was close to other homeless services. Green Street was chosen, it is within walking distance form a number of assisted living facilities, like the Salvation Army, and Morning Star hostels as well as a 2 minute walk to the Capuchin Day Centre for Homeless, one of Dublin’s longest running soup kitchens.

However, the significance of the site in a historical context was much more important. It is located in a vacant site between the Debtors Prison and Green Street Courthouse, now only operating as civil court offices. The area was located on the old site of Newgate Prison, with a memorial park positioned at the end of the block. The site gives a sense of prominence, while allowing a subtle response to two domineering

buildings. The varying architecture allows for a more free expression of building than the Georgian Terrace type.

The vacant Debtors Prison, is of huge interest and parallels my building type in certain ways. The prison was built in 1794 as an extension to Newgate Goal Prison. It was design to house people that could not keep rent on their lodgings. It was an attempt to supplant the sponging houses. ‘Dublin An Historical Guide’, London, 1825, describes two reviews of the building, one in 1808 and a subsequent visit in 1812.

The intention of the prison, as described by Wright was one “In which should be a united permanence and security, with such an arrangement as would at once prevent the communication of contagious diseases and contribute to the convenience and comfort of its unhappy inmates, as far as their circumstances will allow” The design was compromised. Spaces were smaller and darker than intended, corridors narrower and insulation or even window panes were non existence.

Internal regulation on Wrights first visit was also nonexistent. The Prison was run by one keeper, with a number of Gaol wardens.

The keeper or head Gaoler had an office to the front of the building, while each wing contained the prisoners, the poorest being on the lower floors. The ground floor contained a tap room in the centre of the plan, accessed by each wing. However beside this was the slurry room where all the shit was dealt with. Conditions on the lower floors of the North wing were described as not fit for living by man or animal. Prisoners would stuff their window openings with straw, their only source of light and faeces from the slurry room were Fig 5.2 (b) View of Debtors Prison from Halston Street. and proposed main entrance into site.

Placement: Debtors Prison

86

Fig 5.2 (c) Material Study and Site site photographs / Place

Placement: Debtors Prison

87

said to overflow at times. The Gaoler fees had a 700% interest rate, with debtors often being imprisoned for a minimum debt of £10, with an average debt often being approximately £130. 9 rooms above ground level in the centre building, considered the best rooms, were let, unfurnished at 7s. 7d and furnished ant £1.2s. 9d per week.

No common hall, no chapel, no provision for chaplain, no infirmary, no wards for solitary confinement of refractory, no separate accommodation for male and female, no rules, no regulations for its internal government or means of enforcing them, no regular fund for repairing it and no legal provision for maintenance of the poorest class of debtors The visit in 1808, documented the corruption of the head Gaoler. No rent payable to the Gaoler, he had rented his office to a tapster at £108. 8s -10d per annum. No internal regulations were implemented. Prisoners were not governed and could access most of the prison at will. No segregation of sexes was in place.

Wright even mentions alcohol being snuck in through the bars of the prison, to which he was appalled, ‘and the evil continues’ The visit in 1812, seem much improved. A new keeper had been appointed, some rules had been implemented and glass was being installed in the window openings.

Kilmainham GoalKilmainham Prison (http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/ Goal Prison (http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/ Fig 5.2 (d) Kilmainham Goal

Kilmainham GoalKilmainham Prison (http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000RIELo4rTq04/s/860/860/Prison-Photo-Kilmainham-Gaol-Prison-Dublin Goal Prison (http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000RIELo4rTq04/s/860/860/Prison-Photo-Kilmainham Fig 5.2 (e) Kilmainham Goal

Final Project III

88

Final Project III

89

5.3

Final Project Part III

The main design challenge in achieving a building like this was the combination of the homeless use of the city as studied and the narrowing down of it. A site strategy was quickly decided upon due to the very apparent site constraint, large stone walls surrounding the site with two entrances, which were used and not altered, two large building either side, which meant that the building would need to be tall to capture light, as well as facilitate the brief. The difficulty lied in using the previous data collected to re- frame the design methodology derived during the first semester. The principles of Heat and Health were kept, however the manifestation of Health was simplified to a more basic architectural idea, that of sanitation. The providing of a health service was too literal, the Health aspect now focused on the materiality and creating a pleasant healthy mental environment. Complimentary design aspect from the previous project were also kept as foundation design decisions; the idea of a primary stairway, a secondary stairway, masonry stoves, and split levels to ease access to upper floor. With these parameters set, initial design studies were done based around the studied homeless spaces, focusing on capturing space and movement through a model study.

The way in which I had approached the design did not suit the project. The use of single walls with each side collecting space varied too much from the studied homeless spaces. The spaces as described show a space created by the function of another that in way can be seen as solid masses as no access in many cases is permitted i.e. sleeping in a doorway of a closed retail shop.

The work shifted to charcoal sketching in order to test out the idea of poche. A number of sketches were done to test the idea of solid and void. Wall thicknesses were varied and differing mass sizes moved around the

plans. The arbitrary nature of the placement of the variation slowly gave way to certain aspects and pockets of space that began to link up. Once these more successful spaces were developed, they were combined with the existing design parameters.

Fig 5.3 (a) Charcoal Sketch poche section

Final Project III

90

Fig 5.3 (b)Series of early model studies. Focus was on a single wall to create spaces

Final Project III

91

Fig 5.3 (c) Early Model study. focus was on a collection of wall to create spaces and a sense of movement

Final Project III

92

Fig 5.3 (d) Charcoal and water sketches . Focus is on atmosphere

Final Project III

93

Fig 5.3 (e) More progressive Charcoal study Drawings. Focus was on negative space

Final Project III

94

Fig 5.3 (f) Early interior sketches. Focus is on surface texture and pattering

Final Project III

95

Fig 5.3 (g) Early Charcoal sketches showing interior, facade and storage studies

Final Project III

96

Fig 5.3 (h) Progressed spacital sketch of sleeping space Charcoal

Final Project III

97

5d

Fig 5.3 (i) Progressive interior sketch of main space charcoal

Final Project Part II

Final Project III

98

Fig 5.3 (j) Examples of interior finished proposed for the wet rooms .- Kevin Low - Small Porjects

Final Project III

99

Fig 5.3 (k) Examples of interior finished proposed for the wet rooms. Kevin Low Small Projects

Final Project III

100

Model 1:100

Final Project III

101

Model - Ground Floor 1:100

Final Project III

102

Model -Second floor 1:100

Final Project III

103

Model - First floor 1:100

Final Project III

104

Final Project III

105

BRIEF:

The duel aspect site allowed for two entrances. The building is entered through a main entrance from the west side on Halston Street, that passes the keepers accommodation, a separated building along a small external public garden space, and a ‘back of house entrance from the East off Green Street. The Large stone and brick boundary walls will be kept on each side. A portion of the site has been left to the Courthouse as there is fenestration an emergency exit on the facade.

The duel entrance divides the use of the building and creates more fluid an accessible ground floor. The social main social space is located in the heart of the building. It is the only place in the building where all three Kachelofens are shared by the one space. Three large masonry stove ovens heat the building and provide structural support for the floor plates. Each masonry oven requires a concrete slab foundation, and an insulating slab at the top of the brick heated smoke chambers to absorb the heat. The floor plates on each floor are concrete and radiate heat absorbed from the stoves. Each stove marks a social space on each floor.

This space is meant to be used during the day and during cold or wet nights becomes a warm floor space when large numbers of rough sleepers wish to use the building.

The more regular sleeping nooks are position around the perimeter of the building. They vary in shelter, lighting and warmth levels. They can be divided into territories with collections of nooks each having a private shower room, toilet and storage area. The design is to encourage a social aspect to the living situation.

The spaces have been designed to give individual sleeping areas, more public social sleeping areas and collective sleeping areas. A main concrete stairs, threads each level. The building is split down the middle due

Homeless Shelter

Unit m²

Dimension

Units

Total m²

40 20 10 8 2

112 112 84 89.6 32

Emergency Accomodation Secondary route to sleeping spaces. Object is to discover a sleeping space, hide away, choice

Single Double Three person Four person six person

2.8 5.6 8.4 11.2 16

Circulation spaces Will be defined by the arrangement of sleeping spaces, core rooms and masonary stoves. Backbone of project

Living Space Meeting spaces entrance foyer reception Smoking area Exterior heated area

50 12 40 12 30

1 4 2 2 2

50 48 80 24 60

2

Core rooms / Services Primary route to services, clear access and waiting areas. Must reases the need of medical facilities.

Laundry male shower room female shower room male w/c female w/c

40 30 30 30 30

1 1 1 1 1

40 30 30 30 30

1 1 1 1 1

90 20 40 20 12

Staff/ Other Keeper's accomodation is essential, must limit staff rooms as much as possible.

Kepper's Accomodation Office Staff room Storage plant room

90 20 40 20 12

1033.6

Fig 5.3 (l) Photoshoped image replacing An Chuirt marble sign with An Baile. Shows entrance to Green Steet Coourthouse

Final Project III

106

Fig 5.3 (m) Ground Floor Plan Showing site strtedgy

Final Project III

107

to the differing heights of each entrance. The site slopes more than a meter lower on the Green Street entrance than the of the Halston Street entrance. To deal with this the building is split on a half level. This is useful in creating an easily negotiated stairs with social spaces and gathering point along it. Two main light wells are situated above the stairs which continues around a central stove and chimney core. These are used as ventilation and to get light deep into the plan, as the nature of the site is dark and enclosed.

The building is book ended by two smaller stair cores with a small lift core tucked against the adjacent Debtors Prison stone wall. Each stair serves as a fire escape for the floors, but more importantly gives a private entrance to floors that are not connected to the main building space. They are divided into three areas for more homeless in a more vulnerable position. There are three separate areas, one for women, couples and families. Each space is design slightly differently to cope with each situation, but each still has an exterior space, a bathroom, a storage area and a shower room.

The areas are have the benefit of not being entirely excluded from the main space, each is on a raised floor level form that of the adjacent main shelter space, overlooking the space from a half story height above.

These spaces can be occupied by anyone in general, but are remain more private to cater for the aforementioned groups when required.

The materiality of the building is derived from the materials of the street. The materials need to be robust enough to deal with varied use and rough cleaning methods. Solid brick wall make up most of the space, in order to retain and radiate heat form the masonry oven. Shower space, bathroom spaces and the laundry space on the ground floor and made from concrete.

Each concrete floor slab heats the concrete raised bed space in each nook.

On entering the building a rough sleeper would walk in, passing a keeper on the way, could grab a mat or sleeping bag from shelves located along the large brick wall and after that have free roam of the building. The design focuses on creating as free a plan as possible but retains enough control that the building could be used successfully without becoming dangerous for its users.

Final Project III

108

Fig 5.3 (n) Exterior view form Green Street

Final Project III

109

Fig 5.3 (o) Exterior view form Halston Street

Final Project III

110

Fig 5.3 (p1) Second floor 1:100

Final Project III

111

Fig 5.3 (p2) First Floor 1:100

Final Project III

112

Final Project III

113

MACRO

COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER

Fig 5.3 (q1) Site Elevation Green Street

Final Project III

114

Final Project III

115

Fig 5.3 (q2) Site Elevation Halston Street

Final Project III

116

Fig 5.3 (r) Detail Axonometric showing wall construction Render Short Section

Final Project III

117

5d Fig 5.3 (s) Short Section

Final Project III

118

Final Project III

119

Fig 5.3 (t) Long Section Perspective

Final Project III

120

Fig 5.3 (u) Second floor communal sleeping space

Final Project III

121

Fig 5.3 (v) Ground floor atrium and stair

Final Project III

122

Fig 5.3 (w) Exterior view form Green Street - Night

Final Project III

123

Fig 5.3 (x) Ground floor social space

Conclusion

124

Conclusion

125

6

Conclusion

The project was never really about developing an architecture. It was an examination of a social view of architecture.

The project in the end, like the beginning proved a provocation. However, I feel this is where the merit in the project lies.

There is no solution to problems like homelessness, the influencing factors are beyond the scope of architecture. My aim was never to provide an answer, it was to examine something that is inherently related to the occupation of space, to objectively look at a culture in which I am not part of and take something from it. The resulting design methodology and building was designed as objectivley as possible but architecture by its nature is always going to be subject to opinion, social agenda, moores and morals. Subjectivity is part of architecture.

The final discussion revolved heavily around the real world application of the project in relation to the buildings acceptance and success. I was never under any illusions, I have been and remain sceptical on both of theses aspects of the project. But it is these aspects that will always be in question, the merit of the project was in suggesting a building, a typology, a methodology in order to raise the question. This project has resulted in the start of a conversation.

Bilbliography & image references

126

Bilbliography & image references

127

7

Bibliography

Books Berger, P. (1972). Ways of Seeing. New York: Anchor Books.

Danaher, Kenneth. 1975 ‘Ireland’s Vernacular Architecture’ The Mercier Press, Cork.

Hall, Edward T. 1966 ‘The Hidden Dimension’ New York, Anchor Books 1990 Heidegger, Martin. 1971 ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ Harper Colophon Books, New York.

Loos, Adolf. ‘Underclothes’ Neue Freie Presse, September 25, 1898 M. T. Fessler, D, 2006, A Burning Desire: Steps toward an Evolutionary Psychology of Fire Learning, National Emergency Training Centre Sharr, Adam. 2006 ‘Heidegger’s Hut’ MIT Von Miess, Pierre. (1986) Elements of Architecture from Form to Place, Van Nostrand Reinhold Journals E.R.C.M. Huismana, E. Moralesb, J. van Hoofa, H.S.M. Korta, c. (2012). Healing: A review of the impact of physical environmental factors on users. Building and Environment.

58 (1), pg 70-80 Moore, Jeann,(2000), Placing Home in Context Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, pg 207^217 Paul A Boghossian’s Essay ‘What is Social Construction’ in Times Literary Supplement, February 23, 2001, pp. 6–8.

Somerville, P. (1997). The social construction of home Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 14 W. Evans, Gary and M McCoy, Janetta (1998), When buildings don’t work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health, Journal of Environmental Psychology 1--8, pg85–94

http://www.dubsimon.ie/Homelessness/HomelessStatistics. aspx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism) http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/9412_009692ch2.pdf) http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1127/489364-focus-ireland/ http://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/894-house-andhome/139156-the-hearth-and-stool-and-all/ http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1203/490576-homeless/ http://www.mqi.ie/services/day-programmes

Image References Fig 1 (a): Loos, Adolf. ‘Underclothes’ Neue Freie Presse, September 25, 1898 Fig 1 (b): http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/focus/robertneuwirth/ - accessed 3rd of October 2013 Fig 1 (c): https://www.mqi.ie/services/open-access-homeless-anddrug-services - accessed 3rd of October 2013 Fig 1 (d): http://www.salvationarmy.ie/republic/home - accessed 4th of October 2013 Fig 1 (e): http://www.ely-keskus.fi/documents/10191/562006/ What’s+up+-+Livi+ja+VALTTI+Tiesaapaivat+2013++Jakoon.pdf/6e67604f-cf7d-4268-ba5d-7979dedc6f65 - accessed 18th of October 2013

Fig 3 (b): Hall, Edward T. 1966 ‘The Hidden Dimension’ New York, Anchor Books 1990 Fig 4 (h): http://www.resilientcity.org/ http://inhabitat.com/bridge-homeless-shelter-wins-aia-national-housing-award/ - accessed 7th of November 2013 Fig 4 (i): http://alvarosizavieira.com/alvaro-siza-swimming-pool-atleca-de-palmeira-english-portuguese-and-german-edition - accessed 8th of November 2013

Fig 2 (a): http://ex-army.blogspot.ie/2013/01/social-construct-issocial-construct.html - accessed 24th of March 2014 Fig 3 (a): Hall, Edward T. 1966 ‘The Hidden Dimension’ New York, Anchor Books 1990

.Fig 4.4 (a): http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/ characteristics-of-the-georgian-town-house/ - accessed 9th off December 2013 Fig 4.4 (b): http://www.soane.org/collections/architectural_drawings/ georgian_regency/town_planning_leasing_layout/2 - accessed 9th off December 2013 Fig 4.4 (c): http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-homeless-949941-Jun2013/ - accessed 9th off December 2013

Fig 4.1 (a):

Breakdown of architectural factor effecting environmental conditions (E.R.C.M. Huismana, E. Moralesb, J. van Hoofa, H.S.M. Korta, c, 2012)

Fig 4.1 (b):

Example of overstimulation (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

Fig 4.1 (c):

Example of confusing space due to the lack of information i.e. door use is unclear (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

Fig 4.1 (d):

Example of retreat space with a view to the exterior (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

Fig 4.1 (e):

Example of an unclear space. Little can be seen beyond the corridor (W. Evans, G and M McCoy, J. 1998)

Fig 4.1 (f): Websites http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homeless-people-being-failed-by-system-which-lacks-compassion-1.1593985 http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_neuwirth_on_our_shadow_cities.html http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html

Heidegger, Martin. 1971 ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ Harper Colophon Books, New York

Irish Hearth Danaher K. 1975

Fig 4.2 (a): http://www.behance.net/gallery/Poster-for-Tomorrow/9688659 - accessed 12th off March 2014 Fig 4.3 (b): Heidegger, Martin. 1971 ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ Harper Colophon Books, New York.

Fig 4.3 (c):

Fig 4.4 (d): https://www.hpsc.ie/Publications/InformationLeafletsfortheGeneralPublic/File,1748,en.pdf - accessed 9th off December 2013 Fig 4.4 (m): http://chestofbooks.com/architecture/Building-Construction-V2/Chimneys.html#.U4-a8vldWSo - accessed 9th off December 2013 Fig 4.4 (n): https://www.inspirationgreen.com/masonry-heaters. html?start=60 - accessed 16th off January 2014 http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/12/tile-stoves.html - accessed 16th off January 2014 Fig 5.2 (d): (http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/ I0000RIELo4rTq04/s/860/860/Prison-Photo-KilmainhamGaol-Prison - accessed 22nd of January 2014 Fig 5.2 (e): (http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/ - accessed 22nd of January 2014 Fig 5.3 (j)-(k): http://www.small-projects.com/ - accessed 22nd of January 2014

Acknowledgments

128

Acknowledgments

129

8

Acknowledgments

Firstly. I would like to thank, Clare and Donal Sherlock, Kate and Ted Hanrahan for their continued support over the past 5 years.

Secondly the staff at both Merchants Quay Ireland’s Riverbank Day Centre and The Salvation Army’s Dublin Granby Lifehouse for their much valued time and co-operation.

Thirdly, the staff at DIT, both the teaching staff, with a special mention to Brian Ward and Hugo Lemont, who’s early intervention help shape my body of work, and to the background staff Paul Moore and Donal.

Thirdly, to my friends and peers, what I have learned from them will stay with me much longer than any thesis, In particular, Robert Sheehan, Pat Gleeson, Column Smith (aka. B2), Shane Phelan, Peter Caulfield and David Lally.