Page 1

ED/GY MAY 2016

Ethical Dwellings for Generation Y

1


Contents ED/GY

May 2016


1

Introduction Who we are. Our position. And the context in which we are working

4

Financial Case Studies Exploring alternative models of home ownership and procurement

7

Spatial Precedents Understanding how people live collectively and build community

10

Future Habits Setting the brief for a dwelling which responds to change

13

Mid Rise Building a formal hierarchy from the public to the private

2

Why? Why we need to advocate for a new way of living in London

5

ED/GY Model Proposing a new form of procurement and ownership

8

Tribe Proposing a new idea of family and community

11

Spheres of Influence Sequential understanding of space from individual to tribe

14

High Rise Reusing an existing tower, insertions create new dwellings

3

Policy Bias Examining the current policies surrounding home ownership

6

How Are We Saving? Exploring the potential gains from the economy of sharing

9

History of Domestic Life Historic lessons on the private and communal parts of the home

12

Low Rise Proposing a fragmented dwelling across a low rise suburban block

15

End Notes Referencing and Thank yous


fig.1


1 Why?

We are millennials living in London. Our generation is living and working differently from any previous generation. Our needs are not met by current housing stock nor can we realistically expect to follow previous generations into home ownership. We are being squeezed out of the city. ED/GY advocates for change.


6

London School of Architecture

Introduction

We are ED/GY: Ethical Dwellings for Generation Y. Amid the current housing crisis in London, Generation Y are losing out. We cannot afford to buy, and yet we are low priority for social housing1. Many of us are trapped in this difficult situation with no realistic, equitable options available. We have a responsibility to address the issues facing our generation: we are millennials trying to solve the housing crisis for millennials. We have formed to challenge the current bias in public policy that favours home ownership at the expense of public good and common interest2. We will use our agency, as spatial thinkers, to act beyond the design and delivery of buildings to create transformative urban proposals and social change. To do this we must be canny: exploiting and manoeuvring within the current systems to leverage opportunities for the good life in today’s crisis. For ED/GY, the home is not an asset, it is a place to dwell and belong. We offer a model of collective ownership that allows long term residents to build equity at a rate they can afford. In opposition to traditional ownership, ED/GY’s proposal facilitates the pooling of resources between larger groups of millennials – unlocking access to our developments for those who cannot get on the ladder in the current market.

ED/GY homes will facilitate the evolving ways that we want to live. In a growing global city, we recognise the economies of sharing and the social benefits of a strong community. We present generous communal living arrangements with choice, a measured balance between the individual and the communal. Our dwellings respond to the new rituals and patterns of living that Generation Y are shaping. ED/GY recognises the potential of intensifying London’s edges, bolstering existing communities with the vibrant energy of young, hard-working millennials. We will create attractive places to live, work and play with the metropolitan intensity and density that is required to support a rich and diverse community. We have tested our research and its spatial implications at three scales: low-, mid- and high- rise. Without a specific site, our propositions are strategic re-imaginings of existing typologies envisaged as applicable to sites across London. The dwellings we propose are designed for sharing: for us it is a luxury not a compromise.


ED/GY MAY 2016

ASSET

We reject the home as an individual’s asset

We contest the policy bias towards ownership

We reject selfish developments that snub the city

£££

We reject financial models that we cannot afford

7


8

London School of Architecture

Strategy

ED/GY will: Define an attractive collective ownership model Identify Generation Y’s emerging habits, customs and rituals Champion sharing as a benefit not a compromise Design developments that engender our values and principles


ED/GY MAY 2016

Spatial Strategy

ED/GY will: Create a domestic realm that allows withdrawal from the city Choreograph a hierarchy of spaces that transition from individual to communal Integrate developments into the wider community Make proposals at low-rise, mid-rise and high rise Use low-cost and sustainable construction methods and materials

9


London School of Architecture

10

fig.2

HOUSING CRISIS The current housing market has inflated the average house price to fourteen times the average income in London3.


ED/GY MAY 2016

11


12

London School of Architecture

Why?

ED/GY has been formed by millennials otherwise known as Generation Y - those born between 1980 – 2000. The concept of millennials designing dwellings for millennials may appear insular and inward looking on the surface, however there is a clear need to address housing for our generation. Millennialls are a large demographic of London’s population but with the average London house price at fourteen times the average London income we are likely to be known by the moniker ‘Generation Rent’ for the foreseeable future. As well as affordability, it is an issue of appropriateness. Our initial research highlighted that current housing stock cannot facilitate the new patterns in which millennials are and will be living. Motivated by this dissatisfaction, ED/GY began to research and investigate millennial living situations to build our case for working to deliver ethical dwellings for Generation Y. ED/GY collaborated with David Segal of Segal Insight to create a questionnaire to learn about millennials aspirations and patterns of living to enrich our spatial propositions. With a sample size of over 200 responses we were able to use key findings from this data to inform our brief and spatial propositions.

fig.3

fig.4 Islington £737 pcm (top) Chelsea £780 pcm (bottom)


ED/GY MAY 2016

AVERAGE HOUSE PRICE

AVERAGE INCOME 1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

2009

2013

House prices are now at 14x average income, making it financially crippling to own a home

Popuation London Popuation UK

0-4

10-14

MILLENNIALS

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

Millennials are the quickest growing demographic in London Statistics taken from the ONS, 2014-20154

13


14

London School of Architecture

Qualitative Data

To understand the needs and desires of our chosen demographic ED/GY undertook a number of interviews of millennials in typical situations, to attain qualitative data and to understand the breadth of millennial experience that expands beyond our own. By asking a standard set of questions - covering ownership, financing, housing history and forecasted futures - we were able to establish needs and aspirations of this generation. Common themes that arose were issues of affordability and frustration with the lack of agency over their own living arrangement and spaces. There was a distinct sense of frustrated compromise in almost all of the interviews. There were also interesting spatial themes arising, like the benefits of communality in shared accommodation and increasing varied working patterns. The interviews became a testing ground and springboard for ED/GY to undertake wider demographic research to acquire quantitative data.

Image above right: Max, live at home graduate

“Actually, by far the most likely way I will ever get a house in London is by waiting for my parents to die and then inheriting their owned house.�


ED/GY MAY 2016

“If anything, high house prices have for a lot of my friends, forced us to move in earlier together with people, than we might otherwise have done because it’s cheaper to live together. It’s weird, it forces you to nest a bit earlier.”

15

“I hate the fact that landlords are not regulated and my landlord makes my life difficult. Therefore I want to be my own boss. I feel in England the only way to be in charge is by owning.”

“I do work at home. I am lucky to have a job in which all I need is an internet connection and where once or twice a week I am able to work from home. That is something that I would require from any future job.”

“I want something with character; but somewhere I can change and renovate the interior design.”

“Having the living room and the kitchen as communal spaces is not only OK, I really enjoy it. That dead time of cooking or washing up is so much better when you’re chatting with housemates. I’m fine with sharing but do think a mix of shared and private spaces is best.”

“We’ll stay in London a few more years and then consider moving to Copenhagen where we can actually buy now. It will be a very serious option if we have children; it’s difficult to afford a family in London and have access to a good education.”


16

London School of Architecture

Quantitative Data

WHAT IS THE CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION FOR MILLENNIALS?

WHAT IS ‘GENERATION RENT’S ATTITUDE TO HOME OWNERSHIP?

An overwhelming majority of our respondents were privately renting - over 70%. In our sample 47% of the top earning millennials - those earning over £50k were privately renting.

94% of those privately renting aspire to home ownership, however only 11% can currently afford to buy. This confirms our initial statement that ‘the system’ is failing millennials - those unable to afford but also a low priority for social housing.

I already own a home I would like to buy and can afford to now I would like to buy but cannot afford to I would like to buy but I don’t think I will ever be able afford to I would like to buy later in life Not interested

Own outright Own with mortgage Shared ownership Private renting Living with friends/family (not free) Living with friends/family (for free) Other


17

ED/GY MAY 2016

Housing security

WHY DO MILLENNIALS ASPIRE TO HOME OWNERSHIP?

Financial investment

Long term housing security was ranked as the most important reason for aspiring to home ownership. This indicates that despite being known as a ‘transient generation’, the surveyed millennials desire long-term security.

Capacity to decorate To settle down To pass it on to children Pride

Kitchen

WHERE DO MILLENNIALS VALUE SPACE IN THE HOME? Hallway

Bathroom

Living Storage Outdoor

Bedroom

WHICH LIVING ARRANGEMENTS WOULD MILLENNIALS BE HAPPY WITH IN A PROSPECTIVE DWELLING? Many of our sample are used to sharing and are happy do so. Of those earning £30k or less, 45% would be happy to share all amenities aside from a private bedroom. 63% of this group would be happy to share living space, with a kitchen / bedroom and bathroom as private. This indicates that there is scope to explore spatial hierarchies ranging from individual to communal.

Our respondents value generous living space as the most important place in the home followed by the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, storage, outdoor and hallway. This trend is regardless of age, income, and gender. This indicates that ED/GY dwellings should prioritise generous living spaces.

LIVING ARRANGEMENT 0-19k

INCOME £ (BRACKETED) 20-29k 30-49k

50k

Private unit, individual amenities

86%

93%

96%

94%

Private unit, communal entrance

81%

92%

87%

88%

Private unit, shared amenities

73%

68%

47%

18%

Private bedroom / bath / kitchen, shared living

73%

59%

27%

5%

Private bedroom, all other amenities shared

54%

41%

13%

0%

Shared bedroom, all amenities shared

8%

5%

0%

0%

The more millennials earn, the less they are willing to share, *Over 80% of the sample earn less than £50k, 5% of survey sample preferred not to disclose their income.


18

London School of Architecture

Policy Bias Right to Buy GOVERNMENT

RENT SUBSIDY

COUNCIL TENANT

REDUCED SOCIAL RENT

RENT

per month

RIGHT TO BUY Right to Buy allows social housing tenants to purchase their homes at a discount rate after three years5. This reduces the amount of truly affordable housing, as the government only requires them to be replaced by houses that are 80% of market rate (the new definition of affordable), if at all6.

COUNCIL HOMEOWNER

BUY AT DISCOUNT

OWN

after 3 years

a


ED/GY MAY 2016

GOVERNMENT

PRIVATE LANDLORD CASH MONEY £££$$

after another 3 years

SELL AT FULL VALUE

PRIVATE LANDLORD TENANT RENT

per month

“AFFORDABLE” RENT

19


20

London School of Architecture

Policy Bias Starter Homes DEVELOPER

DEVELOPER

BROWNFIELD SITE

STARTER HOMES Starter homes are a replacement for social housing sold under Right to Buy. Only the top third of eligible first time buyers in London will be able afford them, even at a 20% discount7. These homes can be sold at full market value after five years8 giving larger returns to people already able to afford property, as well as pushing up house prices.

HOMEOWNER

HOMEOWNER

£450k

£450k

HOMEOWNER

£450k

BROWNFIELD SITE

HOMEOWNERS


ED/GY MAY 2016

PRIVATE LANDLORD CASH MONEY £££$$ SELL AT FULL VALUE £450k + INFLA-

after 5 years

££

£££££

21


22

London School of Architecture

Policy Bias Help to Buy GOVERNMENT

BANK

55% MORTGAGE MONTHLY REPAY-

5% ASPIRING DEPOSIT HOMEOWNER

HELP TO BUY Increased accessibility to finance allows people who have the 5% deposit in cash to buy beyond their means, pushing house prices, and the British dream of homeownership, further out of reach for people without access to a cash deposit9.

40% LOAN


ED/GY MAY 2016

Change of Use

C3

NEW BUILD ADHERING TO MINIMUM SPACE STANDARDS

OFFICE

B1 CHANGE OF USE The change of use-class from B1 (office) to C3 (residential) can be done under Permitted Development10. Space standards are not enforced in a development of this nature11 so it is a desirable option for developers as it increases profit margins. It results in substandard space offered at high prices (because of increased value of land) and longer commute distances caused by a reduced local diversity of use-class.

C3

NO MINIMUM SPACE STANDARDS

23


fig.5


2 Precedents

To build our understanding of how communal living has been achieved spatially and financially we have explored a series of case studies and economic models. We seek a model of design and delivery that is both economically and socially sustainable, a place for millennials to enjoy the good life.


26

London School of Architecture

Financial Case Studies

fig.6

POCKET LIVING ‘AFFORDABLE’ DUE TO SQUEEZED SPACE Pocket Living target those that cannot get on the housing ladder. However, their answer to achieving affordability is to squeeze the size of the home rather than innovate spatially or financially. Through relying on government policy on starter homes and Help-to-Buy while lobbying for smaller space standard; Pocket are adding fuel to the housing crisis.


27

ED/GY MAY 2016

DEPOSIT

Access to a home

Profit Repayment

Help to buy

Market Sale

Mortage

Resident

Construction

Developer Council

HELP TO BUY

Spatial design

Land

Funding

Feasibility

Developer Developer Architect Bank

MORTAGE

Resident

STARTER HOMES ARE INFLATTING HOUSE PRICES

STARTER HOME

50% 40% 10%

Developer Architect

Developer Contractor

Developer Estate Agent

Developer Bank

STARTER HOMES ARE TOO FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP

STARTER HOME FINANCIAL MODEL Financially Starter homes seem more affordable at first but Help-to-Buy and starter home policy actually puts the house buyer at massive financial risk and could lead to a life time of debt. Starter homes are also not meant to be long-term residences which often means smaller homes and built of less robust materials as the hope is you will move quickly up the housing ladder

Lifetime of debt

START BUILD

COMPLETE BUILD

Starter Home

STARTER HOMES ARE FAILING TO FOSTER COMMUNITY


28

London School of Architecture

Financial Case Studies

fig.7 RURAL URBAN SYNTHESIS SOCIETY (RUSS) BUILDING NEIGHBOURHOODS RUSS is a contemporary interpretation of Walters Way, seeking to create a new Community Land Trust with self built homes and a communal garden12. The homes are designed to be affordable with RUSS owning 20%, and then a shared ownership agreement where you buy 10% and rent the rest of the property, until the resident buys more when they can afford to. Rents are controlled by RUSS and they have a scheme wide mortgage with the Ecological building society (access to property will cost no more than a third of a residents wage).


29

ED/GY MAY 2016

20% Community

Community

Access to a home

Resident

Repayment

Resident

Buy Property

Community

Self-Build

Consultation

CLT membership

Resident

Deposit

Community

80%

CLT KEEPS 20% OF EACH PROPERTY

Market Sale

START BUILD

MEMBERSHIP REQUIRES 5 YEARS IN ONE BOROUGH

Resident

COMPLETE BUILD

Community Land Trust

Council

Bank Loan Charity Council

CLT Architect

COMMUNITY LAND TRUST (CLT) FINANCIAL MODEL CLT model of ownership is designed to be truly affordable to build diverse communities of residents who wish to live in a borough and not move for a lond period of time. CLTs are unique cases to individual sites and councils and almost impossible to transfer. CLTs maintain ownership of between 20-60% of each property in order to keep control of rents and tenancies of a site13.

CLT Self builder Contractor

CLT

CLT Bank Council

Neighbourhood

Maintenance

Construction

Spatial design

Funding

Land

CLT

CLT

NEIGHBOURHOODS OVER HOMES


30

London School of Architecture

Financial Case Studies

fig.8 ZANDERROTH BENEFITING FROM LIVING TOGETHER Baugruppen is “a solution for the moment, when the city is not acting as it should.” - R5014. The Baugruppen model is the most successful model of co-funded, co-authored and co-lived housing in Europe. The model is based on a multi-family collective pooling their finances and collaborating with a designer to design and build a home which fits their needs socially, financially and aesthetically. The model doesn’t yet have a policy framework in the UK with multi-family mortgages or self-build financing being limited.


ED/GY MAY 2016

31

BAUGRUPPEN POOLS MORTAGES TO BUY LAND AND BUILD HOMES

Residents Bank

Community

Community

Resident

Pay Mortages

Residents

Access to a home

100%

Use pooled funds

Participatory design

Community Residents

Write the brief

Residents Bank

Pool Mortages

Multifamily community

Residents

START BUILD

MULTIPLE FAMILIES POOL RESOURCES TO GET THE HOME THEY WANT

COMPLETE BUILD

Baugruppen

Baugruppen

Baugruppen Bank Accountant

Baugruppen Architect

BAUGRUPPEN FINANCIAL MODEL The Baugruppen financial model relies on the financial framework and policy being in place for families to buy into. In the UK we are lagging behind Europe in how we own homes and live collectively. Baugruppen empowers a community to get funding and build the housing they need. The model provides specific housing and can be affordable through good design15. However, the model still relies heavily on the residents going into debt with mortgages, and residents can sell their home for profit at anytime which could cause a transient community unlike a CLT.

Baugruppen Contractor

Baugruppen Bank

Neighbourhood

Maintenence

Repayment

Construction

Spatial design

Funding

Land

BAUGRUPPEN

Baugruppen

HOMES FOR SPECIFIC NEEDS


32

London School of Architecture

Spatial Precedents MONTE CASSINO St. Benedict of Nursia Hill top above Rome, Italy, 529 The source of the Benedict order; a cenobitic monastery when communal life was the dominant way of living. Envisioned as a selfsufficient community to remove the necessity of monks leaving the monastery’s limits. The introverted space of the cloister gives a sense of sharing, while the rectangular plan of the charter house reflects basic communal activities. The dormitories were large rooms divided into individual areas by fabric, reminding that individual space is always a collective space.

fig.9

KIBBUTZ Socialist-Zionist communities Rural Israel First Kibbutz in 1910; 270 Kibbutzim in 2010 Founded as a rural egalitarian community; shared ownership of its means of production and consumption. Early Kibbutz provided little expectation of privacy, where the entire community resided in one large room with external washing facilities. This arrangement has evolved alongside Kibbutz ideology into four-bed cells, family units, and - with the recent approval of private property - into private lots. The communal dining room remains at the heart of the concentric layout of the gated community. fig.10


ED/GY MAY 2016

33

DROP CITY Gene Bernofsky, JoAnn Bernofsky, Richard Kallweit and Clark Richert. Southern Colorado, US, 1965-73 Recognised as the first rural hippie commune. Art students acquired a seven-acre plot of land to live and work together; their artistic output taking the form of buildings. Inspired by Buckminster Fuller, they built DIY geodesic domes (a first for domestic living) using waste and salvaged materials16. The publicity and tourism following their Dymaxion award (1966) was in opposition to the isolation the group originally sought, and the project was eventually abandoned.

fig.11

THE RYDE Cockaigne Housing Group PRP Architects Hertfordshire, England 1962 A high density development in relation to its suburban context: 28 single story homes (based on the new Parker Morris standards) were built in place of the site’s original allocation for 12 homes. Overlooking was avoided through high fenced private gardens and internal courtyards. A community hall and garden could be reached through a door from every back garden, meaning that there was no mediation between the very private and the fully communal.

fig.12


34

London School of Architecture

Spatial Precedents HOUSING UNION BUILDING (HUB) University of Alberta Students Union Diamond and Myers Architects, R.L. Wilkin Architect Edmonton, Canada 1969 The HUB was an innovative approach to low rise, high density, student housing17. An enclosed pedestrian street, housing apartments and commercial businesses, was built over an existing street to connect campus buildings. Glazed public staircases facing the thoroughfare fostered a strong sense of community, while varying degrees of communality were offered through one, two, and four bed apartments.

fig.13

CHRISTIANIA Anarchist community Copenhagen, Denmark, 1971 A self-proclaimed autonomous settlement on the site of former military barrack: 850 residents over 34 hectares. The fence was initially removed by to create a children’s playground, and evolved into building a community from scratch in response to a lack of affordable housing and social facilities. The area has a unique status that is regulated by special Christiania law (1989). The community is self-governed through neighbourhood forums within the existing military buildings, while homes are constructed out of salvaged materials.

fig.14


ED/GY MAY 2016

35

WALTER’S WAY Lewisham Council Walter Seagal Lewisham, London 1979 The design of Walter’s Way derived from an approach to simplify the building process so that it could be undertaken by anyone, quickly and cheaply. Accordingly, the homes were set out on a modular grid determined by standard material sizes; making them easily adaptable to suit a growing family. The introduction of porches and double height spaces opened up a dialogue with neighbours, fostering a strong community.

fig.15

JYSTRUP SAVVÆRK Vankunsten Jystrup, Denmark 1982 21 residences are connected to a central common house by a glazed internal street. Shared facilities (including a workshop and guest bedrooms) make up 40% of the development; while subtle level changes, roof terraces, and family gardens provide privacy. The location of mailboxes in the common room means that that residents filter through the shared space on their way to and from work18.

fig.16


36

London School of Architecture

Spatial Precedents BEDZED Peabody Housing Bill Dunster Sutton, England 2002 The first large scale eco-community in the UK: 100 homes, office space and communal facilities. Units are orientated to provide north light for working and south light for living. However, a lack of interest has led to the conversion of workspaces into homes, and the majority of residents installing blinds to avoid overlooking. Roads are constrained to the perimeter of the development, allowing car-free ‘home zone’ streets to become semi-public gardens where residents can socialise, albeit preventing the community’s integration with the city. fig.17

R50 BAUGRUPPEN ifau, Jesko Fezer and Heide & Von Beckerath Berlin, Germany 2013 19 units across 6 floors, with a double-height community space and laundry facility on the ground floor, and a rooftop terrace. Perimeter balconies form a secondary circulation route and shared communal space that connects the three apartments on every floor; where passing bedroom windows creates an intimate relationship between neighbours. The economical finish of the concrete shell and modular wooden elements allows the architecture to become appropriated by its residents19.

fig.18


ED/GY MAY 2016

COPPER LANE Lewisham Council Henley Halebrown Rorrison Architects London, England 2014 London’s first co-housing scheme. The design approach maximises external space; six residences are clustered around a central court housing shared facilities, yet face out towards the perimeter communal gardens. Private and shared courtyards modulate degrees of privacy, while their sense of enclosure breeds social interaction20.

fig.19

OLD OAK COMMON The Collective PLP Architecture London, England 2016 Recently completed 550 bed co-living space targeting young professional tenants. ‘Twodio’ describes a studio for two people, each with a bedroom reduced to 3m2, sharing a bathroom and a two-hob kitchenette. The squeezed individual living conditions are justified through access to ‘luxury’ branded communal spaces; including a gym, restaurant, co-working space and disco themed laundrette (featuring two disco balls and a dance floor). The £1100 a month tenancy is all inclusive; covering bills, wifi, cleaning, and gym membership. fig.20

37


38

London School of Architecture

History of domestic life To assess the construction of the ‘home’ as we understand it today, requires the unpacking of the history of domestic life. Rather than tracing the evolution of the home through its relatively recent established room names, we have instead investigated the spatial manifestations of different domestic activities (Sleeping, Eating, Bathing, Working and Socialising)21. A selection of our findings that were most influential when reimagining the home.

SLEEPING Public bed Until the 17th Century, for most ordinary people, the bedroom and bed was still a very public space, everything happened there - sex, childbirth, marriage, death.

fig.21 15th Century Bedroom The Closet The wealthy elite also had very public bedrooms, however these were paired with the closet. A very private space off the bedroom for complete solitude, prayer and isolation. The height of luxury.

fig.22 Ham House - The Green Room Closet


ED/GY MAY 2016

COOKING Central Hearth Prior to the 16th Century the hearth was the focus of the room and was usually positioned centrally. It was the main means of keeping warm and cooking but meant that smoke and cooking smells invaded the home.

Central hearth 16th Century Fitted Kitchen The post-war technology boom pushed to liberate housewives from kitchen drudgery. German kitchen design and labour saving layout of sink cooker and fridge (golden triangle) hoped to do this by reducing the amount one had to move in the kitchen.

fig.23 Frankfurt kitchen Open Plan Kitchen The open plan revolution in the 1980’s is enabled by the invention of the extractor fan, food preparation becomes a performance.

fig.24 Open Plan Living 1960’s

39


40

London School of Architecture

History of domestic life SOCIAL LIFE Great hall In the Middle Ages, agricultural communities lived together in large open halls, where they would eat, sleep, and gather around a central hearth together. Although open plan, a raised step with chair demarcated a clear hierarchy between the ‘chairman’ (landowner) and his workers. fig.25 The Hall, Penthurst Place, Kent

Withdrawing room The Elizabethan era saw the arrival of chimneys and glass windows, where wealth was demonstrated through grand houses. Guests were impressed with the grand chamber, and the most exclusive were invited to sit by the fire with the host in the ‘withdrawing room’.

fig.26 Withdrawing room, Hardwick Hall, 1597

The Grand Circuit Kedleston Hall became infamous in the 18th C as the ideal country house. The main house was purely for show and entertaining, while the family lived in an entirely separate smaller wing. The ‘grand circuit’ comprised of a series of non-exclusive reception rooms open to all guests to explore and be impressed by unfolding views of the party across the entire house.

fig.27 Kedleston Hall 1765


ED/GY MAY 2016

BATHING Communal bathhouse Historically bathing has been a communal and social activity. What began as a spiritual act of cleansing the body and the soul, developed into an intensely social affair with the Roman baths. Now the communal practice of bathing is continued in Japan and Finland which see the use of steam baths and saunas as a daily or weekly ritual for friends and family. The tendency to see washing as a utility and an individual practice is a relatively young idea.

fig.28 Roman baths, Pompeii

WORKING Pre-industrial work Work and life have always been related: the house was close to the workplace, and often they overlapped. The pace of work was set by the natural cycle of seasons and days. The First Industrial Revolution, and the waged work in the factories, created a spatial and temporal divide between life and work. fig.29 Angelus, Jean-Franรงois Millet, 1857

Post-industrial work In the 1970s, with the rise of the postindustrial era, the service industry overcame the work in the factory. Communication technologies have eventually defined a new workplace in which employees are more connected to their job beyond the boundaries of the traditional workday and workplace. fig.30 Mr. Hulot, Jaquw Tati film, 1857

41


3 Strategy

Having taken lessons from recent and historic financial and organisational models, ED/GY presents a strategy for collective ownership and communal living. Our proposal balances the economies of scale and social benefits of communal life with personal long-term security and financial interest.


44

London School of Architecture

Economies of Sharing

TYPICAL DEVELOPER

ED/GY

2% Marketing 10% S106 contribution

Marketing S106 contribution

5% CIL

CIL

38% Build cost

Build cost

7% Site infrastructure

Site infrastructure

38% Land

Land

MODEL We looked at building costs to identify where we can save money and make the ED/GY model viable22. Compared to the typical developer model, we will save a considerable amount of money on land, by moving to the edges of the city. We will not pay S106, because we will provide affordable housing. By reducing the number of kitchens and bathrooms needed, we could specify better quality, long lasting materials.


GL

AB

OU

ND AR Y

ED/GY MAY 2016

LONDON 2016 Crossrail 1 Crossrail 2 45 minutes from Tottenham Court Road

+£45m

£40<£45m £35<£40m

OU AB

£20<£25m

GL

£25<£30m

ND AR Y

£30<£35m

£15<£20m £10<£15m £5<£10m £0<£5m fig.31 LONDON

The maps show the boundaries of London combined to land prices. London is here defined by connection to the city centre rather than institutional boundaries: London is made of the areas within 45 minutes commute to Tottenham Court Road, and it will expand in 2019 with the opening of the Crossrail 1. Our survey shows millenials are willing to commute less than 45 minutes each way daily.

LONDON 2019

45


46

London School of Architecture

Material Palette

fig.32 DOMESTIC / HONEST / ADAPTABLE We are shifting away from the rhetoric of newness and of radical forms. We instead see the potential of humble architectural expression which uses robust materials and building beautiful space with the most affordable materials. We are exploring materials which can adapt over time.


ED/GY MAY 2016

R50 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cohousing Ifau und Jesko Fezer + Heide & Von Beckerath

47


48

London School of Architecture

Construction

fig.33 Murray Grove Waugh Thistleton

STRUCTURE ED/GY is committed to designing with cross laminated timber (CLT) as its primary structural material. CLT structures reduce risk in the construction process, they can be modularised and are as much as 50% quicker to erect on site than a concrete frame23. CLT is sustainable too, considering carbon sequestration it is carbon negative (timber naturally captures carbon by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere in its growth cycle)24.

MATERIALITY ED/GY is committed to using â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;structure as finishâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and embrace a raw aesthetic that minimises the use of secondary finishes. This emphasises dwelling as a process rather than a product, residents are empowered to personalise finishes how they wish. By primarily introducing ad-hoc, inexpensive materials, ED/GY are committed to designing and building in a way which embodies home as dwelling over asset25.


ED/GY MAY 2016

fig.34 Svartlamoen Housing Brendeland & Kristoffersen

fig.35 Circus BA IT MET

fig.36 Maison Latapie Lacaton & Vassal

fig.37 Popadich Residences Pattersons

49


50

London School of Architecture

Tribal Living

Millennials are struggling to accommodate themselves in the current market. With their prospects so low as individuals, we suggest that communal living, and the pooling of resources, is the best way for Generation Y to attain the good life. Communal living presents obvious advantages for young people in the city and for ED/GY it should be a luxury rather than a compromise. Collective purchasing power, domestic economies and financial economies of scale are obvious practical benefits. Socially, communal living could give a sense of belonging and extended family that â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Generation Lonelyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; report to be missing from their lives26. ED/GY advocates for tribal living - dwelling groups of 50 millennials who live, work and play together. This would be equivalent in size to a kin group or large extended family. When grouped with two other tribes, the size of the group would reach 150. This is the anthropological limit of an intimate community where members recognise each other and can maintain a sense of belonging, support as well as continuity27.


ED/GY MAY 2016

Domestic Isolation

lonely

isolated stressed tired over-worked stressed

Tribal Living

shared childcare

sense of family collective responsibility

social life life events celebrated in the home shared domestic chores

51


52

London School of Architecture

DEPOSIT

RISK

=

CAPITAL

Ethical Bank

DEVELOPMENT COSTS

INVESTMENT BOND

LOAN

+

Crowd Investors

LOAN REPAYMENTS

ED/GY

Committed Millennials

DESIGN PARTICIPATION

Committed Millennials

COMPLETION

INITIATION

ED/GY Development Model

PROFIT

Ethical Bank Construction

STAGE 1 ED/GY approaches an ethical bank with the deposits and earning potential of the millennial group as collateral. Mini-bonds are issued to investors with a fixed term and rate based on the development type.

STAGE 2 ED/GY develops for the millennial group with borrowed capital. Developments are bespoke to the group but - to reduce borrowing cost, risk, and make a profit - speed is paramount. In addition to development costs, ED/GY services the bank loan.


ED/GY MAY 2016

END OF LOAN TERM

OCCUPATION

10 YEARS

MONTHLY PAYMENTS

Committed Millennials

collective equity

80%

Transient Millennials

RENT

RENT

Transient Millennials

EQUITY

PAYMENT

Committed Millennials

53

ED/GY equity

MAINTENANCE COSTS

MANAGEMENT COSTS

LOAN REPAYMENTS

PRINCIPLE + INTEREST

20%

Ethical Bank Crowd Investors

STAGE 3 Mini bonds mature and ED/GY repays investors from development profits. Millennials move in and start affordable monthly payments. The committed group build equity, whilst the transient group pay rent. ED/GY covers maintenance, management and the bank loan.

STAGE 4 The committed millennial group collectively own 80% of the development. ED/GY maintains 20% equity, continues to earn rent from the transient millennials and continues with the management as well as the maintenance.


fig.38


4 Brief

ED/GY has forecasted current and future domestic activities of the millennials we aim to accommodate, including the predicted trends and lifestyle shifts that define our generation. These habits, customs and rituals occur cyclically across days, weeks and years and fall on a scale of individual to communal. The spatial organisation of individual to communal life is the essence of the brief for ED/GY. These are communal dwellings for families of friends.


56

London School of Architecture

Habits

EAT L

EARN

FUCK EAT BREAKFAST

TECH BLAST

CLEAN BODY SLEEP

DRESS

2AM TO 6AM

Our daily activities are changing, the advent of technology is proving to both connect and alienate individuals. Eating, bathing, and even sleeping, however, could become much more social affairs through subtle changes in dwelling typology: the ED/GY proposals will address the increasing loneliness of life in a city like London, forming meaningful ways of encouraging communality.

SHIT

6 A M T O M I D D AY

EARN


ED/GY MAY 2016

57

COMMUNAL

LUNCH

EAT DINNER

EARN

EARN

NAP

TECH BLAST

TECH BLAST GROUNDING SHIT

SHIT M I D D AY T O 6 P M

6PM TO 12PM

INDIVIDUAL


58

London School of Architecture

Customs

COMMUNAL BATHING

EAT OUT

WORK MEETING WORK INDIVIDUAL

WORK INDIVIDUAL

FUCK

EXERCISE

SORT RUBBISH D AY 1

D AY 2

The abolition of late-night licenses, increased pressure to work hard and play hard, and minimal disposable income due to extreme rent costs are altering the customs of going out in London, spaces to congregate and share with existing communities are essential: millennials are spending more time at home and at the pub than in the clubs. Increased communality in conjunction with apps enabling the ‘economy of sharing’ may introduce customs like swapping clothes.

D AY 3

F


ED/GY MAY 2016

59

COMMUNAL

LECTURE

SUNDAY SERVICE

CLOTHES SWAP

PARTY UP

WORK MEETING

WORK INDIVIDUAL

SHARED CHILDCARE

FUCK FUCK

BODY MAINTENANCE

D AY 4

D AY 5

D AY 6

D AY 7 INDIVIDUAL


60

London School of Architecture

Rituals

CIVIL PARTNERSHIP

BIRTHDAY

HARVEST

HARVEST

SPRING CLEAN

SUMMER SCHOOL

IMPROVE HOME

REFRESH POSSESSIONS

HOME BIRTH YEAR 1

Celebrations and rituals have been increasingly pushed out of the home. Individual domestic life is isolated from work and play and measly space standards make even a small dinner party tricky in most current house shares. The economies of sharing grant ED/GY millennials the space to gather and celebrate.


ED/GY MAY 2016

61

COMMUNAL

BIRTHDAY

BIRTHDAY

HARVEST

SPRING CLEAN

SPRING CLEAN

SUMMER SCHOOL

HOME BIRTH YEAR 2

YEAR 3

INDIVIDUAL


62

London School of Architecture

Holarchy of Sharing

The holarchy of sharing defines spaces and activities shared between people in ED/GY dwellings. These are the levels we identified from the individual to the city - how they are composed and what they share. INDIVIDUAL Withdrawing, bed, sink FAMILY – 7-8 individuals WC, shower, kitchen, dining space EXTENDED FAMILY – 2 families Living/social space, winter garden, childcare, bathing TRIBE – 50 individuals Variety of workspace, exercise, play, terrace/garden VILLAGE – 3 tribes + CITY town hall, public space, garden and terrace, laundrette, workshop, pub, shops


ED/GY MAY 2016

KEY: INDIVIDUAL FAMILY - RESIDENT EXTENDED FAMILY - INVITED TRIBE - SEMI - PUBLIC COMMUNAL - PUBLIC ACCESS

63


fig.39


5 Proposal

We present three ED/GY typologies for London: low-rise, mid -rise and high-rise. These are tactical re-imaginings of existing typologies envisaged as applicable models for sites across the city. They test the feasibility of our strategy and spatial implications of our brief. These are dwellings designed for sharing, for us it is a luxury, not a compromise.


66

London School of Architecture

High-Rise

The high-rise typology is suited to the inner city and is the most central of our proposals. As an expensive typology with high levels of construction and planning risk, new-build high-rise is impracticable for ED/GY’s delivery model. In London, there is currently a trend for office to residential conversion of existing high rise buildings under permitted development rights. Many of these developments seek to profit from the current madness of the residential market by atomising towers into luxury residential units, often marketed abroad. ED/GY proposes an alternative strategy for the city’s existing towers, allowing millennials to benefit from life in central London. A light touch, affordable solution - that treats all intervention as varying weights of furniture - allows us to establish a horizontal hierarchy from communal to individual space.

The floor plate is liberated with strategic organisation of services and a ‘mini-urbanism’ approach treats each floor plate as a small piece of city allowing depth, richness and varying character. Each floor is atypical and accommodates life, work and play throughout the tower. Sculptural enclosures that celebrate communal activities break the section, enabling a varied spatial quality. We have tested our strategy on Archway Tower, a office tower above Archway Tube Station, currently undergoing office to residential conversion. Location: Central London

Commute time: Under 20 minutes Density: 1200 millennials/hectare Square m: 8550

Residents: 180 millennials


ED/GY MAY 2016

TYPICAL HIGH RISE SECTION

TYPICAL HIGH RISE PLAN KEY: INDIVIDUAL FAMILY - RESIDENT EXTENDED FAMILY - INVITED TRIBE - SEMI - PUBLIC COMMUNAL

ED/GY HIGH RISE SECTION

ED/GY HIGH RISE PLAN

67


68

London School of Architecture

Intervention as Furniture Sculptural Intervention Furniture Concept: ‘Built In Bookcase’ CLT, Hardwood Timber Finishes The most communal spaces are the largest interventions in the tower. They strategically break through the existing structure to offer distinct spatial qualities. These celebrated spaces in the program have a bespoke materiality. They are multipurpose, permanent features of the strategy.

Individual Withdrawing Rooms Furniture Concept: ‘Sofa’ CLT, Acoustic Insulation, Birch Plywood Finish Withdrawing rooms are the most individual, private spaces in the tower. A variety of sizes cater for a range of millennials, from the most transient to the most permanent. With CLT structure as finish, the rooms can be easily personalised. Although semi-permanent, they are free standing and can be moved if part of the tower requires adaptation or re-purposing.

Partitions Furniture Concept: ‘Occasional Table’ Polycarbonate, Plywood, Curtains Partitions are devices which shape communal spaces without introducing permanent walls. Translucent polycarbonate partitions define space whilst allowing light penetration and plywood shelving includes surfaces to perch or work. Curtains offer flexible spaces which can quickly be expanded or subdivided. Both the shelving and partitions are free standing and can be adapted as required.


70

London School of Architecture

Mini-Urbanism

Liberate the plan by consolidating bathrooms near the core. Sculptural insertions respect the existing structural grid.

Individual Withdrawing rooms are clustered into â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; groups who share and take ownership of the spaces directly in front of them.

Shelves and curtains, the lightest touch insertions, are used to shape and hold the progression of spaces from the very communal to the most individual.


0

5m


72

London School of Architecture

Holarchy of Sharing Arriving on an ED/GY High-Rise floor brings residents or guests from the circulation space to the communal eating and cooking areas. These are shared between the ‘extended family’ on each floor. Each cluster of individual withdrawing rooms share a porch space and a living area. The special spaces are for the benefit of all residents.

KEY: INDIVIDUAL FAMILY - RESIDENT EXTENDED FAMILY - INVITED TRIBE - SEMI - PUBLIC COMMUNAL


ED/GY MAY 2016

73


74

London School of Architecture


ED/GY MAY 2016

75


76

London School of Architecture

Mid-Rise

The ED/GY mid rise typology derives from the holarchy of spaces between the individual, the tribe, and the city. This gradation is employed in section between floors; as an integrated piece of city at ground level, through to 150 individual withdrawing rooms on the top storey. Accordingly the journey through the building spans between the civic, public, and domestic staircase. Moreover, the relationship between private and communal is graded on each floor through courtyards, arcades, porches and level changes. The building is centered around a courtyard and allows the form of the block to adapt to the perimeter of any feasible site. Location: Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Hounslow, Redbridge, Waltham Forest Commute time: 40 minutes to Central London Density: 150 millennials/hectare (Tower Hamlets 128 persons/hectare) Square m: 6,000 Residents: 150


ED/GY MAY 2016

TYPICAL MID RISE SECTION

KEY: INDIVIDUAL FAMILY - RESIDENT EXTENDED FAMILY - INVITED TRIBE - SEMI - PUBLIC COMMUNAL - PUBLIC ACCESS

ED/GY MID RISE SECTION

77


78

London School of Architecture

COMMUNAL SPACE

The ED/GY Mid-rise block intends to counter â&#x20AC;&#x153;an island of niceâ&#x20AC;? through creating new connections between surrounding streets at ground level with parkland and valuable community amenities: a town hall, workshop, pub, laundrette, and corner shop. A civic stair leads to a semi-public first floor that provides facilities, including workspace and communal bathing, to be shared between three tribes (150 people). Each tribe (50 people) has a staircase leading to the second floor that is separated into covered terraces for extended families (16 people). Every terrace is shared by a pair of families that facilitates spillover from family activity when greater communality is desired. The facing family areas (8 people) house cooking, living, washing facilities, and a domestic staircase leading to individual withdrawing rooms on the top story. These are the most intimate spaces of the building, that while limited in plan are generous in section to accommodate an entrance porch beneath a raised bed, from where a high level window establishes a visual connection back to the city.

INDIVIDUAL SPACE

KEY: INDIVIDUAL FAMILY - RESIDENT EXTENDED FAMILY - INVITED TRIBE - SEMI - PUBLIC COMMUNAL


ED/GY MAY 2016

79

03

02

01

00

0

5

10

20


80

London School of Architecture


ED/GY MAY 2016

81


82

London School of Architecture

London Borough: Connection To The City


ED/GY MAY 2016

Ground Floor: Tribal Community & City

83


84

London School of Architecture

Second Floor: Extended Family


ED/GY MAY 2016

Third Floor: Individual

85


86

London School of Architecture

Low-Rise

ED/GY Low-Rise not only proposes an alternative to the terraced house, but also a reinterpretation of the suburban street. Fragmenting the home into a series of activities across a walking distance block. Encouraging engagement and integration with the community through our habits, customs, rituals. Creating a piece of city of metropolitan intensity in one of the outer boroughs, where low-density housing can offer interesting ways of meeting people, in the place of hermetically sealed family houses. These low-rise dwellings seek to imbue a deep subjectivity by creating a sequence of spaces from the intensely communal to the completely individual. ED/GY see the dwelling as an opportunity to ground ourselves and make everyday life something to celebrate.

KEY: INDIVIDUAL FAMILY - RESIDENT EXTENDED FAMILY - INVITED

Location: Woking, Brentwood, Slough Commute time: 45 minutes to Central London Density: 160 millennials/hectare Square m: 544 Residents: 16+

TRIBE - SEMI - PUBLIC COMMUNAL - PUBLIC ACCESS


ED/GY MAY 2016

87

TYPICAL LOW-RISE

ED/GY LOW-RISE The proposal the terraced INTERACTIVE STREETflips / FLIPPING THE HOME house, shifting

PLAY

COOK

EAT

TRAVEL

LIVE

LIVE

SLEEP

SLEEP

WORK

SLEEP

SLEEP

communal activities to the street and explores using the variety found in the rear extensions of terraced houses to create a diverse street frontage.

WORK

EAT

COOK

PLAY

TRAVEL

ED/GY LOW-RISE SECTION The section before/after diagrams highlights the extreme privacy of the existing terrace typology, with the projected communality of an ED/GY intervention.

PUBLIC LIFE STREET / FLIPPING THE HOME INTERACTIVE

MEET

PLAY

SLEEP

ENTRY

WORK

LIVE EAT

SLEEP

WASH

SLEEP

SLEEP

BATHING PLAY

EAT

WORK

PLAY

EAT

PLAY

SLEEP

SLEEP

TYPICAL LOW-RISE SECTION


88

London School of Architecture

Vibrant Streets PUBLIC LIFE STREET / FLIPPING THE HOME INTERACTIVE

WORK

PLAY

WASH LIVE

ENTRY SLEEP

WASH LIVE

ENTRY SLEEP

LIVE

WASH

ENTRY SLEEP

WASH LIVE

ENTRY SLEEP

WASH LIVE

TRAVEL

WORK

ENTRY SLEEP

PLAY

WORK

LIVE

WASH

WORK

ENTRY SLEEP

WORK

TRAVEL

LIVE WASH LIVE WASH EAT ENTRY SLEEP SLEEP PASS

SLEEP

LIVE PLAY

EAT

WORK

SLEEP

SLEEP ENTRY

WORK

SLEEP

EAT

LIVE PLAY

LIVE WASH WASH LIVE EAT ENTRY SLEEP SLEEP PASS LIVE WASH LIVE WASH ENTRY EAT SLEEP

GROUNDING BATHING

LIVE WASH LIVE WASH EAT SLEEP PASS ENTRY SLEEP

A M A S S

AMASS

LIVE WASH EAT LIVE SLEEP WASH PASS ENTRY SLEEP

TYPICAL SECTION

WORK

PROPOSED SECTION

A PIECE OF CITY / GENEROUS TO COMMUNITY

KEY: INDIVIDUAL FAMILY - RESIDENT EXTENDED FAMILY - INVITED ED/GY low-rise aims to create a piece of city, bringing disparate activities together into the intensity of a single street, reducing stressful commutes and dormitory towns by integrating work and play.

TRIBE - SEMI - PUBLIC COMMUNAL - PUBLIC ACCESS


ED/GY MAY 2016

89


90

London School of Architecture

Fragmenting the Terraced House FROM NAMED ROOMS TO BEHAVIOURS Individual

Communal

Semipublic

Current low-rise typology

Spare room

Fragmenting the home into a series of behaviours: individual and communal

Couples Pair

Meet and Greet

PREFABRICATED WITHDRAWING ROOMS Prefabricated CLT withdrawing rooms containing the basic facilities required for a self-build mortgage are the DNA of low-rise. The rooms can be configured to form work or living space for individuals, couples or families.

Individual = solid/warm/intimate Communal = light/cool/open

Work parking


ED/GY MAY 2016

Sixteen Bed Dwelling

METROPOLITAN INTENSITY Through a spatial strategy of give and take we have designed a dwelling for 16 millennials: offering more communal space and intense private spaces. The transition from communal to individual is translated materially into light and heavy timber structure.

91


92

London School of Architecture

Developing a piece of city

L

AL

H WN TO

SATURATING THE STREET WITH LIFE Housing should be an integral part of the city not a sealed â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;island of niceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. We propose a development strategy which gives back to the community, through providing one public structure per 16 bed dwelling. Creating a diverse experience of individuality and communality across a walking distance block. Creating a heterogeneous street with a metropolitan intensity.

D

G

LIN

L WE


ED/GY MAY 2016

D

G

LIN

L WE

WO

P

HO

S RK

93


94

London School of Architecture

THE NEW TERRACED DWELLING The new terraced house typology provides residents with the option to live as communally as they like, with spaces ranging from super-private to open ground floor communality. Rear gardens provide space for spare rooms for sleep or work.


ED/GY MAY 2016

95


96

London School of Architecture

VIBRANT STREETS The CLT withdrawing room will be used as adaptable live or work spaces depending on their configuration. The new terrace typology draws inspiration from split levels and public realm that encourages positive loitering. Shared semi-enclosed space will spill into front gardens stimulating streetlife.


ED/GY MAY 2016

97


98

London School of Architecture

SHARED HOUSE Reappropriating existing houses for public amenities such as town halls, workshops and baths gives back to the community. The town hall is created by knocking through existing structures and wrapping with a lightweight envelope, providing a space for congregation of multi-family community.


ED/GY MAY 2016

99


100

London School of Architecture

Bibliography Aureli, P.V. (2014) Less is enough: On architecture and asceticism. United Kingdom: Strelka Press. Awan, N., Schneider, T., Jeremy and Till, J. (2011) Spatial agency: Other ways of doing architecture. New York, NY: Routledge. Bryson, B. (2010) At home: A short history of private life. London: Doubleday. Catling, C.S. (2014) Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: What is the moral duty of the architect? Available at: http://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/viewpoints/damned-if-you-do-damnedif-you-dont-what-is-the-moral-duty-of-the-architect/8669956.article (Accessed: 31 May 2016). Caviar, S. (ed.) (2014) SQM the quantified home. Switzerland: Lars Muller Publishers. Dorling, D. (2015) All that is solid: How the great housing disaster defines our times, and what we can do about it. United Kingdom: Penguin Books. Foster, D. (2016) Help to buy is riddled with loopholes that the privileged can easily exploit. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/mar/11/government-help-to-buy-housingscheme-house-of-cards?CMP=share_btn_tw (Accessed: 31 May 2016). Moore, R. (2016) Slow burn city: London in the Twenty-First century. United Kingdom: Picador. Parvin, A. (2016) Housing without debt. Available at: https://medium.com/@AlastairParvin/housingwithout-debt-5ae430b5606a#.eg7sa5wuf (Accessed: 31 May 2016). Schoenauer, N. (2003) 6, 000 years of housing. 3rd edn. United States: W. W. Norton & Co. Self, J. (2016) ‘Work on, work on, but you’ll always work alone’. Available at: http://www. architectural-review.com/archive/work-on-work-on-but-youll-always-work-alone/10002024. fullarticle (Accessed: 31 May 2016). Smith, G. (2016) Outrage: ‘Architects are complicit in the commodification of UK housing’. Available at: http://www.architectural-review.com/archive/outrage-architects-are-complicit-in-thecommodification-of-uk-housing/10001742.fullarticle (Accessed: 31 May 2016). Wainwright, O. (2016) A wholesale power grab: How the UK government is handing housing over to private developers. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-designblog/2016/jan/05/housing-and-planning-bill-power-grab-developers (Accessed: 31 May 2016). Woodman, E. and Greeves, E. (2008) Home/away: Five British architects build housing in Europe: The development of housing in Britain 1870-2008. United Kingdom: The British Council Visual Arts Publications. Zogolovitch, R. (2015) Shouldn’t we all be developers? United Kingdom: Artifice Books on Architecture.


ED/GY MAY 2016

101

Image References Fig.1-Bristow, G. and Bethell, C. (2015) Fuck Foxtons Placard Available at: http://www.vice.com/en_ uk/read/housing-crisis-march-bristow-910. Fig.2-Carrilho da Graça, D. (no date) London is Changing Available at: http://www.londonischanging. org/. Fig.3-Bloom, D. (2014) Budge up! Step inside London’s smallest flats. Available at: http://www. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654275/Budge-Step-inside-Londons-smallest-flats-reach-hob-BEDtheyre-snapped-hours-hundreds-pounds-month.html. Fig.4-Bloom, D. (2014) Budge up! Step inside London’s smallest flats. Available at: http://www. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654275/Budge-Step-inside-Londons-smallest-flats-reach-hob-BEDtheyre-snapped-hours-hundreds-pounds-month.html . Fig.5-Simon, P. (2001) Sufi Dancing, hippie commune style Available at: https://productsandportfolio.petersimon.com/cgi-bin/store/imageFolio. cgi?action=view&link=Counter_Culture&image=COMMUNE_DAYS_031. jpg&img=0&search=commune&cat=all&tt=&bool=or&tfile=tn_COMMUNE_DAYS_031. jpg&numtolist=1800&sortfiles=2 . Fig.6-Pocket Living (2016) Pocket - new developments - Willingham terrace NW5, Camden. Available at: https://www.pocketliving.com/buy/development/11 . Fig.7-Architype (2015) RUSS Available at: http://www.architype.co.uk/blog/community-self-buildgroup-gets-approval-to-develop-south-london-homes/ . Fig.8-Menges, S. (2011) BIGyard Zelterstraße 5 Zanderroth Architeckten Available at: http:// cargocollective.com/thisispaper/zanderroth-architekten-BIGyard-Zelterstrase-5 . Fig.9-Hollas, F.E. (2012) Abbey of Monte Cassino Available at: https://monkschronicle.wordpress.com/ tag/abbey-of-monte-cassino/ . Fig.10-DigitalGlobe (2015) Nahalal, Israel Available at: http://www.dailyoverview.com/page-20/ . Fig.11-Richert, C. (1968) Drop city Available at: http://www.clarkrichert.com/drop-city/ Fig.12-Grondplan (no date) The Ryde Available at: http://ground-plan.co.uk/research/the-livedexperience/chapter-1/ . Fig.13-HUB, Edmonton Archives EA-340-594 (no date) Housing union building (HUB) — 1969-1971 Available at: http://capitalmodernedmonton.com/buildings-by-area/hub/ . Fig.14-Dinamarca - Christiania (2016) Available at: http://cavalinhoselvagem.blogspot. co.uk/2014_01_01_archive.html .


102

London School of Architecture

Image References Fig.15-Turner, J.D. (2015) Walter’s Way Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/ sep/16/anarchism-community-walter-segal-self-build-south-london-estate . Fig.16-Jystrup-Savvaerk - Vandkunsten (2014) Available at: http://storiedellarte.com/2014/02/ labitare-condiviso.html . Fig.17-Chance, T. (2010) BedZED Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomchance/1008213420/ . Fig.18-Alberts, A. (2015a) Gallery of R50 – Cohousing / ifau und Jesko Fezer + HEIDE & VON BECKERATH Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/593154/r50-nil-cohousing-ifau-und-jesko-fezerheide-and-von-beckerath/54cb088de58ece9901000333-r50_aa_dsc8017-jpg . Fig.19-Marinescu, I. (no date) Copper Lane - Henley Halebrown Rorrison Available at: http://hhbr. co.uk/work/copper-lane/ . Fig.20-Behnke, T. (2016) Old Oak The Collective Available at: http://bizforward.de/consumer-trends/ co-living-working-lifestyle-neues-wohnkonzept-in-london/ . Fig.21-Unknown (no date) 15th Century Bed Available at: https://planetamadera.wordpress.com/ page/12/ . Fig.22-Green Closet - Ham House (no date) Available at: http://thebrimstonebutterfly.blogspot. co.uk/2010/11/ham-house-part-two.html . Fig.23-Frankfurt Kitchen - Schütte-Lihotzky (2010) Available at: http://www.metropolismag.com/ September-2010/The-Modern-Kitchen-Again/ . Fig.24-Armstrong Cork Company (1956) Excelon Tile Styles 762 and 765 Available at: http://www. plan59.com/decor/decor058a.htm . Fig.25-Hollingsworth Wharton, A. (1915) Penshurst Place Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Penshurst_Place#/media/File:The_Hall_at_Penshurst_Place_from_Ancestral_Homes_of_Noted_ Americans_by_Anne_Hollingsworth_Wharton_(1915).jpg . Fig.26-NTPL and Guttridge, N. (no date) The withdrawing chamber at Hardwick hall, Derbyshire Available at: http://www.ntprints.com/image/357260/the-withdrawing-chamber-at-hardwick-hallderbyshire Fig.27-Dennis Gilbert (no date) The Marble Hall at Kedleston Available at: https://nttreasurehunt. wordpress.com/category/kedleston-hall/ . Fig.28-Alma-Tadema, L. (1909) A Favourite custom Available at: http://www.wikiart.org/en/sirlawrence-alma-tadema/a-favourite-custom-1909 .


ED/GY MAY 2016

103

Image References Fig.29-Millet, J.-F. (1859) The Angelus Available at: http://www.jeanmillet.org/The-Angelus,-1857-59. html . Fig.30-w-Tati, J. (1954) Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot -Screenshot Available at: http://www. treehugger.com/interior-design/office-future-may-well-look-giant-rock.html . Fig.31-Our estimates Fig.32-Alberts, A. (2015b) Gallery of R50 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cohousing / ifau und Jesko Fezer + HEIDE & VON BECKERATH - 17 Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/593154/r50-nil-cohousing-ifau-und-jeskofezer-heide-and-von-beckerath/54cb08c7e58ece5c5e000313-r50_aa_dsc8078-jpg . Fig.33-Pryce, W. (2014) Murray Grove, Waugh Thistleton Available at: http://www.nytimes. com/2012/06/05/science/lofty-ambitions-for-cross-laminated-timber-panels.html?_r=0 . Fig.34-Fowelin, J. (2005) Svartlamoen housing: BRENDELAND & KRISTOFFERSEN Available at: http:// www.bkark.no/projects/svartlamoen-housing/ . Fig.35-Ruault, P. (1993) Maison Latapie - Lacaton & vassal Available at: https://www.lacatonvassal. com/index.php?idp=25 . Fig.36-Rojas, J.A. (no date) Gallery of CircusBA / it met - 5 Available at: http://www.archdaily. com/776510/circusba-it-met/5637f4bbe58ece6e6400006d-circusba-it-met-photo . Fig.37-Devitt, S. (2011) Popadich Residence - Pattersons Available at: http://www.dwell.com/myhouse/article/rock-boat . Fig.38-Friends TV Show (no date) Available at: http://www.mtv.com/news/2052730/friends-couch/ . Fig.39-Mattsson, P. (2015) Demonstrators on the London March for Homes Available at: http://www. socialistparty.org.uk/articles/21777 .


104

London School of Architecture

Endnotes 1 - Osborne, H. (2015) Generation rent: The housing ladder starts to collapse for the under-40s. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/22/pwc-report-generation-rent-togrow-over-next-decade 2 - Foster, D. (2016) Experts say housing bill signals end of the road for affordable housing. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/05/expert-views-housing-bill-endaffordable-housing 3- Bullock, S. and Quirk, B. (2015) City villages: More homes, better communities. Edited by Andrew Adonis and Bill Davies. p. 23 4- Office for National Statistics. (2015) Annual mid-year population estimates: 2014. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/ populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/2015-06-25 5 - Right to buy: Buying your council home (2016) Available at: https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buybuying-your-council-home/overview. 6 - Osborne, H. (2016) Only one in 10 homes sold under right to buy are replaced in England. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/24/right-to-buy-homes-sold-england-councils. 7 - Jefferys, P. (2015) Who can afford a starter home? | shelter blog. Available at: http://blog.shelter. org.uk/2015/10/can-you-afford-a-starter-home 8 - Stone, J. (2016) Government’s flagship starter home housing policy will only help 5 per cent of renters, analysis finds. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/governmentsflagship-starter-home-housing-policy-will-only-help-5-per-cent-of-renters-analysis-finds-a6903016. html 9 - Affordable home ownership schemes (2016) Available at: https://www.gov.uk/affordable-homeownership-schemes/overview 10 - Smith, L. (2016) ‘Planning: Change of Use’, House of Commons Briefing Paper, (01301). 11 - HL 100 - building better places (2016) The Stationery Office 12 - Dayes, K. and Chair, R. (2015) About. Available at: http://www.theruss.org/about/ 13 - About CLTs Available at: http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/what-is-a-clt/about-clts 14 - Don’t call it A commune (2015) Available at: http://www.metropolismag.com/May-2015/DontCall-It-A-Commune/


ED/GY MAY 2016

105

Endnotes 15 - Eliason, M. (2014) Baugruppen: To form a more affordable urbanism. Available at: https:// www.theurbanist.org/2014/05/20/baugruppen-to-form-a-more-affordable-urbanism/ 16 - Spatial agency: Drop city (2011) Available at: http://www.spatialagency.net/database/ drop.city 17 - Capital Modern. (2012) Housing union building (HUB) — 1969-1971. Available at: http:// capitalmodernedmonton.com/buildings-by-area/hub/ 18 - ABV (2014) Vandkunsten, architects: Jystrup savværk cohousing community, jystrup, denmark 1982-1984. Available at: http://abv.dk/2676/vandkunsten-architects-jystrupsavvaerk-cohousing-community-jystrup-denmark-1982-1984/ 19 - Metropolis (2015) Don’t call it A commune. Available at: http://www.metropolismag.com/ May-2015/Dont-Call-It-A-Commune/ 20 - Moore, R. (2014) Copper lane review – an appealing, harmonious, cost-effective model for communal living. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/31/ copper-lane-review-cohousing-stoke-newington-henley-halebrown-rorrison 21 - BBC Four (2011) If walls could talk: The history of the home. Available at: http://www.bbc. co.uk/programmes/b010p5z5 22 - Parvin, A. (2016) Housing without debt. Available at: https://medium.com/@ AlastairParvin/housing-without-debt-5ae430b5606a#.mta5wzxo1 23 - Risen, C. (2014) The world’s most advanced building material is... Wood. Available at: http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/world%E2%80%99s-most-advanced-buildingmaterial-wood 24 - Waugh Thistleton Available at: http://www.waughthistleton.com/project/dalston-lane/ 25 - Lafitte, S. Naked house concept // naked house community builders. Available at: http:// nakedhouse.org/nakedhouse.html 26 - Gall, R. (2013) The loneliest generation? Available at: https://socalledmillennial. com/2013/10/02/the-loneliest-generation/ 27 - Krotoski, A. (2016) Robin Dunbar: We can only ever have 150 friends at most…. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/mar/14/my-bright-idea-robin-dunbar


106

London School of Architecture

Thank you for reading


ED/GY MAY 2016

cbn 2016 ED/GY Ethical Dwellings for Generation Y. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/ Design Think Tank Leaders Matt Dalziel Will Hunter ED/GY Team Raphael Arthur Chiara Barrett Ian Campbell Jack Idle Phoebe Nickols Fabio Maiolin Fiona Stewart Graphic design / Art direction Lallu Nykopp Editors Lallu Nykopp Ben Breheny With special thanks to Liddicoat & Goldhill Haworth Tompkins PDP London Interrobang Mikhail Riches Hut Architects Carmody Groarke If_Do David Segal Roger Zogolovitch Rae Whittow-Williams Chris Paddock David Lomax

107

ED/GY Primer  

Our think tank is concerned with the agency of the architect: using our agency as spatial thinkers we have formed an organisation: ED/GY -...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you