THESIS REPORT

SELF-BUILD

COMMUNITY

A social housing project including refugees

1

2

“Architecture should bring people together across age, language, culture and tradition.�

- Christina K. Magnussen

Aarhus Arkitekskole Project report - Thesis fall 2017 Sustainability Christina Kastalag Magnussen - 2012141 Supervisor - Walter Unterrainer

3

4

CONTENT

Introduction

The project - and the main intentions

8

Analysis and research

Social housing - what is it in Denmark

12

Lack of identities in social housing

14

Self-building - the good example

18

Changed through time 20 Examples from Denmark 26 Examples from Abroad 28 Denmark vs. Holland 30 Method 34 Diversity 36 The architect’s role 38 The project The site 44 Density of neighborhood 48 Expression and context 52 Intentions 54 Volumetric studies 58 Plan suggestions 62 Program 64 Process of self-building 66

References 74 Appendix 78

5

6

Introduction

7

THE

PROJECT

And the main intentions

This master thesis questions the way social housing is build today, in terms of space, identity, community, economy and building method. It speculates on new and inclusive forms of design, production and inhabitation of these buildings in their urban context.

After visiting a refugee camp in Jordan, I was inspired by the way the refugees inhabited their new situation. They created their own identity through incremental self-building and adaptation, by creatively using any materials available to them, artistic processes and growing plants. This creativity and active user involvement can be seen as a metaphor for social and refugee housing, also in Europe.

“Collective governance is key for the resilience of commons as it involves an ‘agreement’ and a ‘shared concern’ not to destroy the resources on which all members of the community depend.”

- Elionor Ostrom 19901

In this thesis I investigate and test different forms of self-building strategies in a European context and a non-conformist architectural expression for people coming from very different cultures.

When looking at social housing in Denmark today, there is a strong lack of identities.

By challenging the present and conventional way of building, giving new opportunities and offering spatial as well as economic assets to people, independent of their origin, but with scarce income and often poor education, I will create a housing situation which can adapt to the individual’s needs, identity and empower its inhabitants. This project started as a preliminary investigation, from a previous semester and continues as a deeper analysis during this thesis.

8

Growing plants

REUSED material Artistic

IDENTITY

SELF-BUILT addition

ADAPTABLE to the need of space

Fig. 1 Refugee housing in Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan - From tent to temporary housing

9

10

Analysis and research

11

SOCIAL HOUSING in Denmark today

NON PROFIT The rent covers operating and mainte-

KR

nance costs, capital expenditure as well as taxes and duties. This means that the finances are moving in a closed circuit.

SOCIAL HOUSING is a part of the DANISH WELFARE SOCIETY. The aim is to offer people good quality and decent housing at an affordable rent, while giving the tenants a right to influence their own housing conditions. The social housing sector stands on these three pillars:

TENANT DEMOCRACY Derives from the legal right to self-determination of once own housing. Residents have the majority in the housing organizations board and the other levels of the tenant de-

FINANCIAL MODEL

mocracy system.

The state and municipalities support the construction of social housing, but do not contribute towards the running costs. Municipalities pays 10%, residents pay 2% as a deposit moving in and the remaining 88% is financed by

KR

normal mortgage loan at market terms.

Fig. 2 Official describtion from the Dansish Social Housing sector 2

KR 12

The basic concept for the social housing sector is to provide housing for those in need, which leads to a mixed group of people. A natural balance of residents across the social and economic scale is important, to prevent segregation in community.

However, social housing today is generally characterized by lower income, higher unemployment, primarily single tenants and one-parent families, than the rest of the Danes. One explanation is that these groups have a general priority when social housing is allocated. The limit of the apartment sizes also affects the residential mix.

A typical family dwelling is 78m2 compared to the average living space per capita in Denmark of 52m2.2

The Danish housing market

Immigrants and desendants of immigrants

Single men, women and couples with children

30 %

26,3 % 41,9 %

Oth ers 5,9%

25,9% Owned homes

53%

Cooperatives

5%

Private rental

22%

Social housing

18%

Others

2%

Social housing

Social housing

11,3 % 21,3 %

Oth ers

53,6 % 17,5 %

7,6%

1 out of 5 in Social housing

Non-social housing

Non-social housing

Fig. 3 Data on social hosing vs non social housing. Available in How to house. 2

13

LACK

OF

IDENTITY

In social housing

“In Denmark, social housing is one of our strengths. Our tenants represent around 180 different nationalities and span broadly on the social and economic scale. In our housing areas families, children, students and elderly live side by side.”

- The Danish social housing sector. 2

Then why has social housing gotten a negative ring to it? Despite good intentions, some social hosing areas in Denmark got the stigma of ghetto.

Ghetto - A part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.

An isolated or segregated group or area. 3

It is not all social housing areas which falls under the stigma of ghetto, but these are still not perceived attractive. One of the key issues for these areas, is the strong lack of identity. The housing was not made to accommodate the needs for a diverse group of people.

Anthropologist Mark Vacher has in his research paper “Refugees and immigrants in the social housing sector” investigated the relations between refugees and immigrants and the social housing sector to better understand what todays problem in social housing is. He states that the ghettoization is a barrier for a successful integration. 4

14

By interviewing people living in social housing he discovered that the integration process has lead many refugees and immigrants to keep a very clear distinction between the inside of the apartment and the outside. The house becomes a place to relax from the integration assessment glances, from the Danish population.

PAKISTANI LIVING ROOM

STAIRCASE IN AMAGER

inside apartment5

Outside apartment5

“All signs, symbols and identity markers are facing inwards the apartments and this is resulting in a very clear distinction between the inside of the apartment and the outside.�

- Mark Vacher 4

This lack of identities are the clear difference between home ownership and social housing in Denmark. In social housing complexes, the world outside of the front door is not considered as a part of the home, especially the staircases, parking areas and playgrounds. This do not only apply to refugees and immigrants but is a general tendency in larger social housing areas, which may have a negative effect such as resourceful families leaving these areas. To overlook these lack of signs, symbols and identity markers are the same to overlook the great potential which is already present. Behind the front doors the residents are actively relating to their home and put great moral value on its appearance.

This I actively want to address in my project. 4

15

Vacher is emphasizing these challenges as critical to improve the overall quality of social housing: To get people

committed and create a connection to the areas outside of the

apartment, is one of the challenges of social housing. This commitment is stopped by the constant judgmental glances from the rest of the Danish population as well as the unclear communication of what is allowed and what is not in the individual social housing associations. This could be changed by including and activating the residents in the discussion making processes.

Changing the standardized apartments and anonymous exterior of the buildings could create some sort of affiliation. If there is no possibility to adapt the apartment to the individual’s needs, the standardized apartment substantiate the felling of not belonging.

Another challenge is to get the good initiatives to thrive – they cannot be planned by the social housing association but need to emanate from local residents. The solution is to support the user driven innovation and acknowledging such initiatives and cultivate the good examples. 4

16

“FRONT YARD” This very sharp distinction between inside the apartment and outside

COMMUNICATION

of the apartment should be soft-

The first contact between the

ened up by moving some identity

housing association and the ten-

markers out into the public space.

ants are often when the tenants have deviated from regulation.

This should be a positive experi-

GUEST APARTMENTS

ence instead of a negative.

Refugees and immigrants often have big families who they invite to stay for up to three months (The

Things to IMPROVE THE LIVING QUALITY for REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS in SOCIAL HOUSING - according to MARK VARCHERS investigations:

maximum of a visitor’s visa to DK).

GOOD STORAGE In relation to the guest visits, there is a lack of storage for mattresses and bedding for big family, inside the apartment.

ADAPTABLE Clearly

communicate

that improvements to the

COMMON ROOM

apartment are fine, as long as they do not decrease the value of the apartment This will make it more of a life project instead of a temporary solution.

KITCHEN AS A WORKSPACE In

Denmark

the

conversation

kitchen is a hit, but for many refu-

A place where people can gather and cook together, throw a party or otherwise interact.

gees and immigrants the kitchen functions as a workspace to fulfill the ideal of the perfect host. If the kitchen and living room are not separated the workload will double.

Fig. 4 Mark Vachers suggestion of how to improve living qualities in social housing 4

17

SELF-BUILDING What does it mean

Self-building is an alternative building method to the conventional way of professional building which includes the user in the building proses.

Two recent and famous examples of self-build projects are Walter’s Way and Segal Close. The projects were built by the architect Walter Segal and a mix of “non – skilled low income men and women from the waiting list for public authority housing”. The projects came to life when the Lewisham Council had bought a piece of land in southern London, considered unbuildable by contractors due to the slope and soft soil. Walter Segal saw possibilities where others saw obstacles – and together with thirteen families, he built Walter’s Way and Segal Close, thirteen two floors houses on the sloping site. The design of the houses were based on the residents needs and their scarce resources. This method is today called the Segal Method. 6

“He taught us to think by ourselves and gave us such confidence when we finished our houses, we felt we could go on to do anything we set our minds to - he literally changed our lives. “ – Self-builder, on Walter’s Way. 6

“Walter Segal didn’t just build a road, he seems to actually have created a community” - Alice Grahame, currant resident. 7

Frames assembled flat on ground Stacked in order of erection

Pushed up to position

18

Temporarily braced together8

Fig. 5 Pictures of Walters Way and Segal Close self-builders in the 1980’s 9

19

CHANGED THROUGH

TIME

The meaning of self-building

By looking into different self-build projects done in Denmark and abroad, I gained a better understanding of what self-building means in today’s modern context, as well as an idea of different methods of self-building. As illustrated on the page 22-23, self-building has changed its meaning over the last hundred years. From being a physical hands-on project to save money, to becoming a philosophical phenomenon, focusing on community, identity and diversity.

Before the industrial revolution people built their homes by themselves, because it was the least costly method. During the industrialization people moved away from the countryside and into the city which resulted in a centralized building market, where people lived side by side in the cramped conditions of apartment blocks.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, after the second world war (WWII), the self-build movement came to Denmark as a response to the expensive, small housing opportunities in the cities. People wanted to get away from the cramped conditions of the city apartments and move to a place with outdoor spaces and plenty room for children to play.

An example of this is Niels Stellan Høm’s company called Høm Husene. He was the first person in Denmark, to making it possible for people without a craftsman’s education, to build their own homes.10 Why did we stop building this way? And how can we reinvent and improve the self-build movement in today’s building strategies?

Today self-building has become more than physically building your own home. People are given choices. They do not necessarily build something with their own hands, but they have a saying in the design phase, and feel they have actively chosen and influenced their own home.

20

Photo of a Høm house - Self-building as a way to save money by doing the manual labour yourself - 1970’s

Photo of HomerusKwartier - Self-building with focus on identity, diversity and community 2017

21

IN

DENMARK

ABROAD

ECONOMY

PHYSICAL PHENOMENON

(a) Vernacular architecture - 1850 (b) Cooperative housing, Denmark - 1913

INDUSTRIALIZATION

1950

1954 - Housing cooperation GDR Germany (d)

(c) Høm Husene, the suburbs - 1950 1970

IMPROVEMENT OF THE DANISH WELFARE SYSTEM

(e) Fremtidens etageboliger, concept - 1973 1978 - Walters way & Segal drive, England (f) 1979 - Housing Im Fang, Austria (g) (h) Trudeslund, birkerød - 1981 1983 - Neustadt 12 ‘Lehrerhaus’ Germany (i) 1984 - Nacht Gärtle, Austria (j) 1985 - Öko Gemeinschaftswohnanlage Austria (k) 1990 - Mietergenossenschaft SelbstBau EG Germany (l) 1995 - Findhorn ecovillage, Scotland (m) ECO-BOOM

(o) Den selvforsynene landsby - 2002 Vester skerninge PHILOSOPHICAL PHENOMENON

COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, DIVERSITY, SUSTAINABLE

(n) Friland, Rønde - 2001

2004 - Quinta Monroy, Chile (p) 2006 - HomerusKwartier, Holland (q)

(r) Tankefuld, Svendborg - 2009 -2009 (s) Godsbanen, Aarhus - 2009 (t) Nybyggerne, Tv-show - 2015 (u) Urbania, Copenhagen - 2017

Fig. 6 Research time line - different self-build projects through time.

22

1850 - (a)

1981 - (h)

2002 - (o)

1913 - (b)

1983 - (i)

2004 - (p)

1950 - 1970 (c)

1984 - (j)

2006 - (q)

1954 - (d)

1985 - (k)

2009 - (r)

1977 - (e)

1990 - (l)

2009 - (s)

1978 - (f)

1995 - (m)

2015 - (t)

1979 - (g)

2001 - (n)

2017 - (u)

23

Høm-Huse

Urbania CPH

Suburbs of Denmark - 1950-70

Copenhagen - 2017

The concept of HØM HUSE was to deliv-

Urbanias vision is to crate an urban, sus-

er a house in prefabricated elements,

tainable and social co-living develop-

which could easily be assembled in a

ment, which inspires the surroundings. It

weekend, by the residents. The new

aims to be an innovative and inclusive

homeowners could save money by

project, with democracy and user driv-

doing all the manual labor themselves.

en processes. The residents will be in-

Therefore it became a popular solution

cluded through the entire process, from

for normal working class families, who

the idea phase to move in. The project

could now afford their own home. The

has been underway for eight years and

residents chose their house from a cat-

has now, with help from a social hous-

alogue and was given the opportuni-

ing cooperation, been approved, and

ties to add some personal touches such

start in January 2018.11

as colors.10

M HUSE HØ HØM HU Order now!

Co-living concept - Self dessision

SE

SELF-BUILDING KIT

BRINGS DIVERSITY TO CITY M HUSE HØ HØM HU

Self- buil - eco village (extreme) Order now!

Co-living concept - Self dessision

Self- buil - eco village (extreme)

24

SE

Høm husene and Urbania project illustrates the radical change of the meaning and reason for self-building.

As illustrated in figure 6 the meaning and reason for self-building has changed through time. The post WWII era gave the building industry new opportunities for producing and building cheaper and faster. When asked about why people stopped building themselves, Niels Stellan Høm states:

“To build by yourself is no longer a shortcut to a cheaper housing situation. The Danes have to much money and too little time. Together with the improvement of the welfare state the interest for self-building disappeared. ” - Niels Stellan Høm, 2005 12

Today self-building has become more about giving the user a possibility to make their own choices and decisions regarding their living situation, which gives them a feeling of ownership and belonging. It has become more of a philosophical approach, with identity, diversity and community in focus.

Urbania CPH project is a good example of this. The project do not necessary want to include the user physically in the building proses, but it aims to include the user in the planning and designing process to fit the building to the resident’s needs.

The difference between the two approaches of self-building is that Høm husene was a prefabricated and designed building kit, which could be assembled on site.

Urbania wants to include the residents in the entire process of designing but not necessarily in the building process.

25

EXAMPLES FROM DENMARK Then and now

Fremtidens etageboliger

Godsbanen

Concept, not build - 1973

Aarhus - 2009

In 1973 Fremtidens etageboliger won the first price in a architectural competition about rethinking the apartment block. The idea was to crate an artificial landscape of concrete slabs, with room for various types of building constructions. The buildings would express the social life lived in the area, but the project, made by Susanne Ussing and Carsten Hoff, was never realized.13 According to Ussinge and Hoff the reason why it was never realized was due to the declining Danish economy in the 70’s, which left no room for experimenting with an expression that could end up looking like Christiania. 14 So what might be wrong with Christiania? Christiana is a self-proclaimed autonomous “free town”. Squatters moved into the abandoned military barracks in 1971 and started their own self-build community. Despite that the Danish government never recognized their ownership of the land, Christiania is still inhabited 47 years later. Since the squatters do not own the land and therefore not legally their own home, no property taxes have been paid to the Danish government in all this time.

According to Ussing and Hoff it is possible that the government feared that their project would lead to a similar gathering of like-minded individuals creating a new “free town” such as it happened with Christiania. 14

26

"Perhaps the political and administrative institutions are afraid of our project. It looks like Christiania and what might such a thing set in motion? The project is made with ideals of real shared housing community - a community, which arise when you are dependent of each other. Not an artificial one, where teachers are in change of making the comminity function.

- Susanne Ussing, 1972 14

Fig. 7 Drawings from Fremtidens Etageboliger, made by Susanne Ussing and Carsten Hoff 13

27

EXAMPLES FROM ABROAD Aesthetics of self-building

Ă–kologische Gemeinschaftswhonanlage

Quinta Monroy

Nofels in Austria - 1985

Chile - 2004

A project developed by Walter Unter-

A project by Alejandro Aravena, to

rainer in close cooporation with the

tackle the challenge of accommodate

residents, which consists of individual

a hundred families cheap. Aravena

homes within a communal frame. The

made a typology that, as buildings,

project included self-building by the

could make a very efficient use of land

residents, with a radical cost efficiency

and where the houses allowed for ex-

and ecological approach. The archi-

pansion. The houses were built in 36m2

tect delivered a scarce frame which

and allowed expansion to the double.

the residents could build into. The hous-

The houses was build as social housing.16

es were built as private housing.15

METHOD: SELF-BUILDING WITHIN A FRAME

METHOD: SELF-BUILD EXPANSION

28

When you look at these two examples you see two very different approaches to self-building, but still they have something in common. They are both build as hybrids. This means that parts of the building have been built by professionals, while the rest is build by the user.

The Ökologische GemeinshafsWhonanlage was a project done by a close cooperation between the user and the architect. The structural frame, part of the facade, roof, plumbing and installations were built by professionals while the rest were built by the future residents.

The Quinta Monry project was a project where the architect built the raw house, with only the most needed functions such as the bathroom, kitchen and a living space. After move-in the residents then filled in the gaps with self-build expansions.

As an architect you are always aware of the aesthetics when you design, but how can you as an architect, decide what is beautiful on others behalf?

“I think that the aesthetics in these self-build projects lies in the beauty of the imperfection. The way you can see the personalities living in the building through the architecture are what brings a building to life.”

- Christina Kastalag Magnussen

29

DENMARK VS. HOLLAND Self-building in modern times

Tankefuld in Svendborg

HomerusKwartier in Almere

Denmark - 2009

Holland - 2009

Tankefuld is a new strategy for a new

The development of HomerusKwartier

district in the town of Svendborg. The ini-

was launched in 2009. Today it consists

tiative was to make a sustainable area

of 3400 homes of which more than 1000

with mixed housing, and up to 2500

were built by collective private clients.

new homes. The project was launched

All the plots have been rented out and

in 2009 but today only about ten houses

the whole district have been built. Vari-

have been built. There are several rea-

ety and diversity determine the special

sons why this project have not been a

character of this neighborhood.17

success.17

30

Why is it so difficult to do self-building projects in Denmark today? During my research I discovered a town in Holland called Almere where self-building has been taken to a whole new level.

Alemere is a town situated 40 minutes by car from Amsterdam. In Almere, the district of HomerusKwartier, has been built after the ZELFBOUW strategy. ZELFBOUW provides privately commissioned and financed housing on designated plots made available by a given municipality, and consists of single family housing and collective housing. This basically allows people to build whatever they desire on their plot. Marieke Brentjens, the municipal spokeswoman of Almere, states that the town needs differentiation and variety in the buildings, which is a quality seen in other Dutch cities:

“Self-building gives a new and different feel and look. Organic grown - beautiful and ugly at the same time� - Marike Brentjens17

The original idea was to improve the quality of living as well as finding sustainable ways of building. In the ZELFBOUW strategy, housing is understood as a common resource. The idea is based on alternative distribution of the most crucial urban resource - centrally placed land - in which a given group of citizens and the municipality enters into mutually beneficial relationships.17 When you compare HomerusKwartier and Tankefuld, they have the same intentions - to create a district with variety and diversity which allows people to show their identity in the architecture they build. The main difference is that in Holland the municipality owns the land, renting it out to people over 50 years. In Denmark it is not allowed to rent out property owned by the municipality so people have to buy the land.

This forcing of land ownership is a common framework in Denmark, that favors the investors as an neoliberal approach, and minimize the chances for people to be able to build by them-selves.

31

Difference between Denmark and Holland: 17

DENMARK

HOLLAND

Governmental and municipality owned

Strong cultural, political and econom-

land can only be sold by the market

ic tradition for social housing in various

conditions. The profit goes to the infra-

forms.

structure.

Tradition of leasing land owned by the

It is not possible to lease land owned

municipality. In Almere you lease the

by municipality, so you have to buy the

plot you are building on for 50 years,

land.

there by paying it off in small portions.

This is a more sustainable solution in the

To get a loan people have to guaran-

long run, as the municipality are not

tee that they can finishing the building

loosing absolute control.

in order to obtain financing.

The ZELFBOUW projects are financed in

Plots in Denmark are sold in larger siz-

a way so that each person get a loan in

es and cannot be divided into smaller

their own bank and then contribute to

plots like in Almere.

the common project.

Denmark is one of the countries with

Plots can be leased in smaller portions

the highest household debts, because

consisting of 50-100 family houses.

of long maturity loans.(See appendix 1) New

developments

that

each

sold

to

nomic

are

apartment

gain

benefit

the for

build

so

can

be

optimal the

ZELFBOUW is a local initiative to enable the municipality to work with private developers in order to create housing

eco-

that fits the needs of its inhabitants.

developer.

These developments are a result of the centralized building market and has become a profitable business.

32

MOTIVATION FOR SELF-BUILDING IN DENMARK: “You do not only get a variety and diversity in the architecture and the city, you get a local community whom takes care of the place and each other. Strong bonds between people are created which leads to commitment, contribution and responsibility, which is sought by municipalities all over the country.”

- Anne Romme, Architect 2016 17

“It is a stupid idea to think that houses should be build by someone else, your house. It might not be beautiful but it brings qualities and appreciations of diversity. You can see who the people are, through the architecture.”

- Jürgen Van Staadten, Architect and self-builder of Almere 2016 17

So what do we gain from incorporating the user and doing self-build project today?

There are still some financial benefits to it, but it also enhances the relation between the building and the builder. As mention earlier in the Walter Segal examples - you could create a community, where people get to know each other through the process of designing their homes and working together, as well as enhancing their self confidence.

This reason is also an argument for involving refugees and immigrants in a self-build project. It could help with the integration, because even though people do not speak the same language or come from the same background - by working together and relying on each other relations are created between people who would not have met under different circumstances.

33

METHODS OF SELF-BUILDING Extracted from case studies

SELF-BUILD REFURBISHMENT

Here the building is build by professionals, and then after move in, the residents can add or change the interior as they like. This is seen in privately owned homes, but also in some social housing, where the upgrades can be made if they enhances the value of the residence.

Here the building is physically being

GUIDED SELF-BUILDING

build by the future residents, under guidance and supervision from the architect. This brings the residents some qualities of self esteem and craftsmanship. A famous example of this guided self-building is Walter Segals, the Segal

M HUSE HØ HØM HU Order now!

Co-living concept - Self dessision

Method.

SE

M HUSE HØ

HØM

H US E SELF-BUILDING KIT

Order now!

Here the user orders a self-building kit, designed by an architect, sometimes

Self- buil - eco village (extreme)

Co-living concept - Self dessision

in cooperation with the user. The kit is

M HUSE HØ

HØM HU Order now!

SE

then delivered on site where either the

Self- buil - eco village (extreme)

user or some craftsmen assembles the

Co-living concept - Self dessision

house. A famous Danish example of this is Høm Husene.

Self- buil - eco village (extreme)

34

SELF-BUILDING WITHIN A FRAME

Here a building is build partly by professionals, partly by the user. This hybrid form of self-building includes the user from the beginning of the design process to the end of the building phase. The Ökologishe Gemeinschaftswohnanlage in Austria, by Walter Unterrainer, serves as an example of this.

Here the building is build with room for

SELF-BUILD EXPANSION

expansion. This means building only the most necessary facilities such as toilet, kitchen and a living area, while leaving a space in between for the residents to fill out after they move-in. A famous example of this is Alejandro Aravena’s Quinta Monroy.

M HUSE HØ HØM HU Order now!

Co-living concept - Self dessision

SE

DIVERSITY TO CITY

This is not a method, but a result from allowing people to self-build. The need for experiments like these are starting to

Self- buil - eco village (extreme)

grow in Denmark, where some projects, like Tankefuld and Urbania, are trying to bring more diversity and variety in

M HUSE HØ HØM HU Order now!

the otherwise monotone cityscape. An

SE

example is ZELFBOUW, in Holland.

Co-living concept - Self dessision

Self- buil - eco village (extreme)

M HUSE HØ

HØM HU Order now!

Co-living concept - Self dessision

35 SE

DIVERSITY True vs. fake

Architect and professor Anne Romme wrote in her PhD thesis “Aspirations for an architecture common� about differences in buildings today. She compared the historic buildings at Burmeistergade, the new development Sluseholmen in Copenhagen with that of a ZELFBOUW development at Scheppstimmermanstraat in Amsterdam in order to find difference in the diversities.

The homogeneous building mass of Copenhagen is clearly the efficient stacking of identical housing units, but often more than a century of refurbishments, modification and merging of smaller apartments to larger, the facades tend to hide a higher degree of interior difference than their uniformity seems to suggest.18 Sluseholmen might look heterogeneous with its large variety in use of materials textures and facade elements. Every building and every apartment looks different, has its own character and feel. But a closer look reveals a serial pattern. All decks are placed at the same level, similar organized and dimensioned standard concrete constructions are used in all buildings. The heterogeneity is primarily in the surface.18 In comparison to Sluseholmen, Scheppstimmermanstraat has apart from individual structures in each building, colors, window proportions which gives it a more true diversity. Each building has been designed and built by different people and that reflects in the overall appearance. The identity of the residents are shown in the individual design and expression. The load bearing structure vary from building to building which shows that each building has been adapted to the need of its inhabitants.

How is it possible as an architect to design a building that provides true diversity? A seen in Scheppstimmermanstraat it depends on the architect’s role in the project and in the amount of user involvement.

36

HISTORIC BUILDINGS

TRUE DIVERSITY

- Over time

SLUSEHOLMEN New development

- No user included

FAKE DIVERSITY

Analysis of differences in Burmeistergade - Copenhagen x

ZELFBOUW New development

- User included

TRUE DIVERSITY

Analysis of differences in typical block in Sluseholmen - Copenhagen x

Exploration of the principles of difference in the Scheppstimmermanstraat architecture - Holland x

Fig. 8 Exploration of diversity - Anne Romme - Aspirations for an architecture common.18

37

THE

ARCHITECT’S

ROLE

In a self-build project

The statement from architect Jürgen Staadten - “You can see who people are through the architecture” - leads back to the question, what role does the architect have in a self-build project? How can the architect design something that contains true diversity and reflects the residents through the architecture?

Architects are currently discussing if self-build projects makes architects obsolete.

I would argue the opposite, the architect becomes more important, with more responsibility. In a normal project the architect has the freedom to design according to his or hers preferences and style. In a self-build project the architect has to provide people with options and choices, so they can style as they wish. The architect needs to take on more roles, provide more options, which leads to more work and responsibility.

As illustrated on page 40-41 the architect will be following the project from beginning to end, through various phases and during each phase have contact to the future residents through user involvement. Furthermore the architect should assemble a team of professional craftsmen to guide the self-builders through the whole process, under the architect’s supervision.

An office needs to be established on site where the design phase should have its base. Workshops along with other events should be held there. When the building phase starts, it would be at this office all the instruction and information meetings will be held.

38

After investigating different methods of self-building, I have chosen the hybrid form of self-building within a frame. When doing a self-building project in Denmark I believe this is the most feasible method because of the strict legal frames of the building regulation, the liability and quality by using professionals as well as the time frame for finishing. The hybrid form brings a good balance between the given and the chosen. What is build by the professionals and what is build by the self-builders.

Method: Self-building within a frame

In this project the hybrid method of self-building consists of structural frames designed by the architect, in which the residents can fill in. But fill in with what? I will offer people some carefully selected and architectural detailed choices, which would arrive from a user involvement process. The timespan and resources of this thesis were not enough to provide the material of such a user involvement process.

Therefore i have a fictional user based on the case studies investigated in figure 6.

M HUSE HĂ˜

HĂ˜M HU Order now!

Co-living concept - Self dessision

Self- buil - eco village (extreme)

39

SE

EVENTS AND WORKSHOPS

LEADER OF THE DESIGN TEAM

ON SITE SUPERVISOR

INSTRUCTOR

40

MEDIATOR

LEGAL ADVISOR

BUILDING

REGULATION

BR

17

ACCOUNTANT

ENGINEER

41

42

The project

43

THE

SITE

Hjortensgade 23

The site of this thesis, Hjortensgade 23, is situated in Vesterbro district in Aarhus C, one of the more expensive housing areas, therefore one of the more resourceful.

To the north, the site borders the botanical garden, which is one of Aarhus’ green “breathing wholes”. East of the site lies Øgadekvartert which is one of the older areas in Aarhus with classic townhouses. South of the site runs Silkeborgvej which is one of the main roads providing quick access to the freeway.

Aarhus

Vesterbro

44

A sawmill was built on the site in 1890’s and was operational until 1967. The municipality bought the land and in 1981 and implement three different public social functions, to attract the citizens of Vesterbro. The Shooter’s House, the Children’s House and the Artist’s House. Only the Shooter’s and the Children’s house have today remained their functions, while the Artist’s house has been converted into a private office.19 The only historical building, dating back to 1896, is the Children’s house and is today functioning as a Youth-Club, communal house of Vesterbro, and act as a playground for kindergartens in the area. Because of its strong social connection to Vesterbro, I wish to preserve the children’s house and incorporate it in my project.

The site

Shooter’s House

Artist’s house

Children’s House

ejen

Møllev

de

ga

ns

te

or

Hj

Sa

45

de

ga

ms

ol

h lt

A competition was issued by the municipality in the summer of 2016, to design a bigger housing complex where 38 of the apartments should be build as social housing. In August 2017, Cebra won the competition with a project consisting of 11.800 m2 with 150 privately owned apartments, 10 privately owned town houses and 38 apartments for social housing. The project will begin its building phase in the beginning of 2018. (See Appedix 2) The need for affordable housing opportunities in the city center has increased so I made the decision to make the whole complex as a social housing project. An argument for choosing this site for social housing is that the area is one of the more resourceful areas of Aarhus. By placing a less resourceful group of people in a more resourceful neighborhood, this could benefit integration and provide greater diversity in Vestrebro’s demographic. I provide is a speculative design on how to create a more inclusive and diverse social housing situation than seen today.

DEMOGR APHICS OF V ESTER B R O - January 2017 (ref)

D E M OGRA PH ICS OF BRA BRA N D - January 2017 (ref)

Citizens with foreign origin

11.4% 7,8%

Citizens with foreign origin

2.540

Danes 36.2%

Citizens with foreign citizenship

Danes 80.8%

Citizens with foreign citizenship

19.1%

1.744

Age: 0-2

8.512

44.7%

3.631

Age: 16-19

Age: 25-64

709

390

12.224

802

1.081

9.070

Age: 3-5

Age: 20-24

Age: 65+

Age: 3-5

Age: 20-24

Age: 65+

334

5.898

1.763

726

2.416

2.539

Age: 0-2

Age: 6-15 689

Age: 16-19

Age: 25-64

Age: 6-15 IN TOTAL - 22.007

2.716

Fig. 9 Comparison of demographics - Vesterbro and Brabrand.20

46

IN TOTAL - 19.350

The area of Vesterbro provides a great deal historic social housing buildings. Previously all walks of life were able to live in the city, but now this area have turned into a more exclusive neighborhood, which only allows people with a certain income to live there. When looking at the social housing situated in Vesterbro it becomes clear that it was made only to accommodate as many people in as little space as possible. What I am suggesting in this project is a new form of social housing, more inclusive with focus on using the future residents and the community in the design process, bringing the area the qualities of infrastructure, and opening up the possibility for another group of people to live in this area of the city. When looking at the difference between Brabrand and Aarhus, we find that the demographics and the housing prices are very different. I want to offer people with a smaller income and different background, a place to live in the city center instead of gathering them in the outskirts of town. Both the city and the people can benefit from the diversity of this mix of people across the social and economic scale.

B R AB R AND

V E S T E RBRO

PUR CHASE PR ICE PR . KM 2

RE N T A L PRICE PR. KM 2

VESTERBRO

29.013 kr/m 2

VESTERBRO

122 kr/m 2

BRABRAND

15.010 kr/m 2

BRABRAND

102 kr/m 2

Difference

14.003 kr/m 2

Difference

20 kr/m 2

Fig. 10 Comparison of demographics - Vesterbro and Brabrand 21

47

DENSITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD Site analysis

The city block - Spaces in-between

Gate

Path

Entrance

Photos by author - Openings in a city block

48

South-east to the site, the cityscape consists of enclosed city blocks, which surrounds a private courtyard. Most of the openings, have been closed off to prevent to many entrances, which could compromise the privacy of the residents and their courtyard.

Photo by author - Density of city block - South east view from botanical garden towards the city

49

The apartment block - Spaces in-between

Road

Road

Green square

Path

Photos by author - Spaces in-between apartment blocks

50

North-east to the site, the cityscape consists of a more open constellation of free standing apartment blocks. The open spaces in-between the buildings reveals the green areas hidden behind, while providing the city with “car free� breathing holes with room for people to move freely around.

Photo by author - Density of apartment block - North east view from botanical garden

51

EXPRESSION AND

CONTEXT

Surrounding the site

Hjortensgade

Rhythms and patterns of Hjortensgade - Photo and analysis by author The buildings surrounding the site to the south-east, are based on the same grid system as seen in the analysis above. The doors and windows align, both horizontally and vertically. But still every house is different. The topography makes the houses vary in height and loosens up the else very strict rhythm of the grid system. Very few of the houses, vary from this system, but they still imitates the system somehow.

52

Personality in the details of Saltholmsgade - Photos by author As Anne Romme states in her PhD thesis, historic buildings have over time gained some sort of true diversity.18 The same applies to the buildings surrounding the site which are all build up by the same system, but have over time gained their own personality traits in their details. The wide selection of colors also brings diversity.

53

INTENTIONS Hjortensgade 23

The Botanical Garden

Existing pathway and tree line

Møllevej

en

Hj or ten sg ad e

th Sal

olm

sga

de

Youth-club and communal house

54

When investigating the site, many interesting aspects caught my attention, such as the centrality, urban pattern, context to neighborhood, vegetation and so forth. I find the close relation to the botanical garden, as a great asset to the program of social housing. It could become more than just housing, a place that offers social interaction and informal meetings. By preserving the existing youth-club and communal house, the area maintains its present function as a lively social meeting place for the young people of the neighborhood.

In relation to the youth-club, a kindergarten would be established on site. The area should not be for housing solely, it will become a magnet for exchange, which potentially could benefit the community.

The porosity of opening up to the botanical garden creates a balance between the openness and the privacy of the site. By allowing people from outside of the residential area to sift through the site and use the public functions, I create an asset to the community, a place where people can meet, which is not only exclusive to the residents living there.

The urban pattern of the surrounding buildings have been reinterpreted in its expression, variation and identity. It opens up with green areas in-between the buildings, like the apartment blocks, and the individual expressions of the facades have been translated into a new non-conformist architectural expression.

The vegetation on the site also intrigued me. When you arrive from Hjortensgade you are faced with a facade of trees. How can I incorporate this green facade in my design, without compromising the design? The tree line is hiding a pathway leading into the site, from north. This existing pathway is overgrown but still gives a glimpse of what is hiding behind the heavy vegetation. The idea is to create a filter of vegetation between the busy road and the site, by preserving some of the biggest trees and cutting down the dense bushes in-between.

55

Mø llev e

jen

Saltholm sgade

Current condition on site - tree line facing historic buildings

HJORTE N S G A D E

The sketches seen on page 57 illustrates different ways of dealing with the existing trees. The one where a part of the facade is facing the street, while another part is hidden behind the trees provides a differentiation between the openness and the privacy. The facade facing the street could provide a public function while the hidden facade could provide housing, with privacy provided by the trees.

Photos by author - Hidden pathway

56

FACADE SEPARATED FROM TREES

FACADE PARTIALLY BEHIND TREES

FACADE BEHIND THE TREES Housing Privately owned

Existing Building

Existing tree line

Greenhouse Botanical Garden

HJORTENSGADE Existing tree

New square

Existing pathway

CURRENT CONDITION - INTERESTING TREES TO PRESERVE

57

VOLUMETRIC STUDIES Testing speculations

58

59

The volumetric study is a result of the testing, speculating and varying different approaches in space, volumes and context. How could the footprint on the ground floor be open, light and airy, while at the same time housing around 10.000m2 of housing, like the Cebra project? The result ended up with this open ground floor plan, and a building mass not only containing housing, but also infrastructure.

By introducing infrastructure, other than the existing youth-club, I provide Vesterbro with a new development which benefits the whole district, and not only the future residents.

Photo sketch by author- The open ground floor plan

60

The Botanical Garden

Mølleve

jen

Hj or ten sg ad e

t Sal

hol

ms

gad

e

The Old City Aarhus

e Vest

Silk

ebo

j rgve

Photo by author - Site model of the building on site

61

rbro

gad

e

PLAN SUGGESTIONS Cultural diversity and flexibility

The guestroom - Immigran variation In my visit to Jordan, an example from Muslim culture, I experienced the cultural differences between the middle-eastern and the Danish culture. While visiting a town called Marka, me and my fellow students were invited into a man’s home. We entered the door and stood in a beautifully decorated guest-room. The door leading further into the house was slightly opened and I noticed the kitchen. The door was quickly closed, and we never saw the rest of the house. (See appendix 3)

Privacy is highly prioritized, therefore the windows are smaller to prevent people from looking in.

The kitchen is closed off from living and dinning areas. It functions as a work space, where fragrance of spices and mess are kept from the guests. (See appendix 4)

The guest-room as the place where you greet and entertain guests.

62

The open kitchen - Danish variation In Denmark the conversation kitchen has become the norm. Because people spend so little time at home today, due to work or spare-time activities, they want to spend time together when they are home. The kitchen is therefore often a part of the living and dining area so that a dialogue is possible while one is cooking and another one is doing homework.

The floor-to-ceiling windows have also become a standard in Denmark. It is about bringing in as much light as possible, as well as getting a view of the nature outside.

The open kitchen in connection to the living and dinning area.

63

PROGRAM More than just housing

The program below (Fig. 13) for this social housing project is more than just housing.

As mentioned earlier it contains infrastructure, social inclusion and exchange. The program I provide here is based on earlier case studies of self-build and inclusive projects (See figure 6), as the user during this thesis is fictional. If realized the program would have been developed in cooperation with the future residents, and could end up looking different from mine. The housing sizes are fixed from the Danish social housing sector which regulations states that an apartment cannot exceed 115m2.

The Municipality of Aarhus also address the need for refugee housing and the sizes thereof. (See appendix 5)

Housing: Private

Shared spaces: Between public and private

Community: - Public

FAMILY HOUSING - Four bedroom 75-115m2 (some in two floors with garden)

COMMON ROOM - Communal dinning

KINDERGARTEN - In cooperation with youthclub

FAMILY HOUSING - Three bedroom 55-75m2 SMALL HOUSING - Two bedroom 40-55m2 SINGLE HOUSING - One bedroom 30-40m2 STUDENT HOUSING - One bedroom under 30m2

RENTAL GUEST ROOM - For guests to stay over night ROOFTOP TERRACES AND GARDENS - Playground, vegetable gardens, green houses LAUNDRY ROOM - Shared facility STAIRS, ELEVATORS AND GALLERIES - A informal meeting place

YOUTH-CLUB & COMMUNAL HOUSE - Existing CAFE RENT-OUT STUDIOS BIKE-REPAIR SHOP CENTRAL ROAD - used for markets, street party’s and such.

STORAGE

Fig. 13 Suggested program for this project - based on fictional user

64

WORKSHOPS

Axo diagram - Housing, shared space and community

Fourth floor

Third floor

Second floor

First floor

Ground floor

65

PROCESS OF SELF-BUILDING And user involvment

When you are designing a project like this, the architect has more responsibility. The architect needs to maintain the overview and be in charge of the organization, while delegating the tasks to a carefully selected team of professionals.

First of all you need to set up the framework that decides, to what extend the user must be involved in the different phases of the process. Figure 11 is inspired by a similar diagram made by Helen and Hard, from a participatory project, and has been transformed to fit my project. The diagram shows how the users could influence this project.

The vertical column to the left, divides the different spacial suggestions from lower to higher degree of participation. The horizontal column in the bottom shows different categories, where the user could have an influence.

66

- W h a t i s f i x e d a n d wh a t c a n be i n f l u en ced b y t h e u ser i n a sel f - b u i l d p ro j ect ?

High degree of participation

Share d Spac e

Priv at unit

Public spac e

Outdoor spac e

Ov e rall c onc e pt

Danish building standard

Low degree of participation

Rule s for use / Organization

P ro g r a m m in g

S u r fa c e s

Form/ D e s ig n

S e lf- B u ild

Fig. 11 Diagram inspired by Helen & Hard Vindmølleparken project, with user participation, (See appendix 6)

67

Figure 12 is also inspired by Helen and Hards participatory project, illustrating the process of a normal building project compared to that of a participatory project.

In a normal building project there is usually very little contact between the user and the architect. The point in the process where they meet is when the sales starts and when the detailing begins, but not before or after.

Looking at the participatory project we see a continuance of contact between the user and the architect. The difference between a participatory project and a selfbuild project is not that big. In a participatory project the user is included all the way to the building phase. Then the project is handed over to professionals to be build, and the user is not included again before move-in.

A self-build project also includes the user in the building process. In this project the professionals will come and build up the framework, in which the self-builders will build into.

68

- W h e re i n t h e p ro c ess ca n t h e u ser p a rt i ci p a t i o n h a p p en ?

NORMAL

PROJECT

PARTICIPATORY

SELF-BUILDING

Move in

PROJECT

Move in

Info meeting How to self-build

Professionals build

Building phase

the frame.

Committed user involvement

Detailed project Sales

Allocation of apartments

USER PARTICIPATION

Workshop III

Workshop II

Workshop I

Info meeting

Building application Seminar Municipallity and Social Housing cooporation

Regulation and concept

Fig. 12 Diagram inspired by Helen & Hard Vindmølleparken project, with user participation, (See appendix 6)

69

In this project the load bearing structure, such as the decks, staircases, elevators, separation walls and toilets are being delivered and build by professionals on site.

This leaves a framework for users to build into.

I provide the user with choices, of options to fill in the frame. People get an idea of what they going to build when they start to make sure that the finished result is compliant with Danish building regulations as well as the user preferences. During the design process the users have a voice and a saying in how and what choices they have.

To make it possible for people to do self-building I have chosen to build in wood.

Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) elements, is one of the most flexible materials to build with and have, with its cross lamination, the same strength as a concrete structure.

It can be used for inner and outer walls, flooring, roofing, staircases and elevator shafts. With its prefabricated elements it is easy to assemble on site which leads to a short construction time and contribute to an easy disassembly when the building’s lifetime is over. It provides a healthy and comfortable indoor climate, it is CO2 neutral and has a low material waste.22 For the self-building part, the structural walls are going to be made from CLT as well.

One of the problems with the CLT is that it is very heavy to work with. To make it easy to handle for the self-builders, the wall components are going to be made in smaller sections which 2-4 people will be able to carry.

On the inside of the apartment, the CLT elements can be left as they are or be cladded with other materials to archive the expression the self-builder wishes. For the exterior of the building I provide the choice of vertical or horizontal wooden boards.

Together with the color of the facade, the windows proportions are up to the individual self-builder to decide, from preselected choices.

70

- W h a t i s b u i l d b y t h e u ser a n d w h a t b y t h e p ro f essi o n a l s?

Apartment separation walls Floor slabs Bathrooms

Stair and elevator core

Lo a d b e a r i n g s t r u c t u re b u i l t b y p ro f essi o n a l s

Interior walls

Facade and windows

S e l f - b u i l d f a c a d e s a n d i n t e r i o r w a l l s b u i l t b y u ser

71

72

73

REFERENCES

1.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

2.

BL – Danmarks Almene Boliger. (2017). At huse alle / How to house – arcitecture and welfare. Viborg. Specialtrykkeriet A/S, pages 9-21

3.

Oxford dictionaries. Online. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/ghetto [accessed 30.08.2017]

4.

Varcher. M (2008). Flygtninge og indvandrer i den almene boligsector. [online] Copenhagen: Center for bolig og velfærd - realdania forsikring. Available at: http://boligforskning.dk/flygtninge-indvandrere-almene-boliger[accessed 06.09.20017]

5.

Varcher. M (2008). Tegn der overskrider. [online] Copenhagen: Center for bolig og velfærd - realdania forsikring. Available at: http://boligforskning.dk/ node/120 [accessed 06.09.20017]

6.

McKean, J. (1989). Walter Segals life work and influence - Learning from Segal, Basel. Birkhäuser Verlag, Pages 172-174

7.

Grahame, A. (2015). ‘This isn’t at all like London’: life in Walter Segal’s selfbuild ‘anarchist’ estate. TheGuardian,[Online]. Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/16/anarchism-community-walter-segal-self-build-south-london-estate [accessed 09.11.2016]

8.

Ianwhite. (2017). The segal method. [Online] Available at:http://www.ianwhite. info/THE_SEGAL_METHOD.pdf [Accessed 10.10.2016].

74

9.

Broome, j and Wilkhu, T. (2016). What We’re Seeing: Walter’s Way – The SelfBuild Revolution. [images] Available at: https://www.themodernhouse.com/ journal/what-were-seeing-walters-way-the-self-build-revolution/ [Accessed 11.10.2016].

10. DRtv. (2013). Danskernes bolig - Typehuset 1:6. [Video] Available at: https:// www.dr.dk/tv/se/danskernes-bolig/-/danskernes-bolig-1-6#!/25:58 [Accessed 28.12.2017].

11. Urbania CPH. (2011). Visioner og værdier. [Online] Available at: http://www. urbaniacph.dk/ [Accessed 14.09.2017].

12. NS HØM fritidshuse. (2007). Danskernes selvbygger-ånd er væk. [Online] Available at: http://www.nshoem.com/p/ls-mere-om-n-s-hm.html[Accessed 07.09.2017].

13. Carsten Hoof. Tænkt og tegnet - fremtidens etage boliger. [Online]Available at: http://carstenhoff.net/taenkt-og-tegnet.php [Accessed 09.10.2017] 14. Svarre, K. (1972 - 2) Nye ideer med vor bolig solid placeret i cement. Politiken.

15. Unterrainer, W. (2015). 30 years after - case study of ´Ökologische Gemeinschaftswohnanlage Nofels´. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Architecture.

16. Elemental. (2017). Quinta Monroy. [Online] Available at: http://www.elementalchile.cl/en/projects/quinta-monroy/ [Accessed 28.08.2017].

17. Moe, T and Bjørn, N. (2016) Om selvbyggeri. [Podcast]. BYLYD #12. Available .

at: http://www.bylyd.dk/12-om-selvbyggeri/h [Accessed 07.09.2017].

75

18 Romme, Anne. (2014). Aspirations for an architecture common - housing contemporary forms of life. PhD. The royal Danish academy og fine arts. pages 17-21 and 26-31 19. MinEjendom. (2017). Hjortensgade 23. [Online]. Available at, http://byggesager.aarhuskommune.dk/Byggesag/Liste?adresseId=53781 [accessed 08.08.2017] 20. Demographics of Vesterbro. (2017). Hele befolkningen i Aarhus Kommune, 1. januar 2017. [Online]. Available at: https://www.aarhus.dk/~/media/Dokumenter/Borgmesterens-Afdeling/Statistik-og-Ledelsesinformation/Befolkning/ Hele-befolkningen/2014-2019/Hele-befolkningen-1--jan--2017.pdf [accessed 28.08.2017] 21. Rental price kr/km2, Pauliana. (August 17th 2016). Se hvad det koster at bo i ding by. [Online] Boligportalen.dk. Available at: http://boligportal.dk/ blog/2016/08/17/se-koster-bo-din-by/ [accessed 28.08.2017] Purchast price kr/km2. Boliga.dk. Gennemsnitlig kvadratmeterpris på boliger i Danmark.[Online] Boliga.dk. Availeble at: http://www.boliga.dk/kvadratmeter-priser-kommuner.html [accessed 28.08.2017] Purchast price kr/km2. [Online] Boliga.dk. Så meget kostede bligerne i 2014.

Boliga.dk. Available at: http://www.boliga.dk/statistik/20141223.aspx?list=2 [accessed 28.08.2017] 22. Træ.dk. (2017). CLT cross laminated timber. [Online]. Available at, https://www. trae.dk/leksikon/clt/ [accessed 05.11.2017]

76

77

APPENDIX 1 Household debt top 10

Reference: Ehrwnberg, B. (2014). World debt mapped: The UK has the fourth-highest household debt in the world. CityA.M,[Online]. Available at: http://www.cityam. com/1411501631/debt-map [accessed 03.01.2018]

78

79

APPENDIX 2

80

A NEW STREET

Æbeløgade is located in the historic Øgade neighbourhood in Aarhus, on a site right next to the city’s botanical garden. Our vision for the project is to create a new quarter with a strong identity that is based on this unique location and relates to the area’s character and feel. The design emerges from what you can call architectural sampling from the surrounding urban context. We mix, combine and reinterpret the Øgade area’s distinctive architectural elements, such as perimeter block structures, slanting roofs, brick facades, green courtyards and cosy streets, to create a new and contemporary Øgade architecture.

The traditional, often introvert, perimeter block is divided in two by a cobbled street that is intended as an active “shared space” with room for traffic, play and common activities. The street forms a vivid artery through the new quarter that in combination with a crossing system of paths opens it towards the city by creating visual and physical connections to the botanical garden. Æbeløgade’s architecture uses dramatic roof pitches to form a dynamic and varied expression, where dormer windows and large window sections create jumps and surprising variations throughout in the facades. The roof pitches create a recognisable identity and contribute to reducing the building heights as well as ensuring optimal daylight conditions and views.

81

LOCATION:

Hjortensgade 23, Aarhus C, Denmark

CLIENT:

Cosmo Property Invest

SIZE:

11.800 m² New building

YEAR: 2017-2019 STATUS:

Ongoing, Competition, 1ST Prize

ARCHITECT:

CEBRA

DEVELOPER:

Raundahl og Moesby

CONSULTANT:

Botanical garden, Aarhus

82

PROGRAM

-

THE NEW STREET is located in the historic ØGADE NEIGHBOURHOOD in Aarhus, on a site right next to the city’s botanical garden.

-

A cobbled street that is intended as an active “SHARED SPACE” with room for traffic, play and common activities, such as cummunal dinning and markets.

-

A new quarter with a STRONG IDENTITY THAT IS BASED ON THIS UNIQUE LOCATION and relates to the area’s character and feel

-

Creating VISUAL AND PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS TO THE BOTANICAL GARDEN. Cooporation between the Botanical Garden and Raundhl & Moesby A/S to create A PARK AND THE NEW STREET.

-

11.800 M² new building (with basement)

-

150 APARTMENTS privately owned

-

10 TOWN HOUSES AT 170M2, privately owned

-

38 NEW RENTAL FAMILYHOMES in diffirent sizes, build by Bolig foreninggen Ringgården as SOCIAL HOUSING.

-

The old CHILDRENS HOUSE IS GOING TO BE USED FOR BUSINESSES and is not a part of the competition. Cadpeople A/S who is currently living in the old artists house move to the old childrens house.

Reference: Cebra. (2017). Æbleægade. [Online] Available at: https://cebraarchitecture.dk/ project/aebeloegade/[Accessed 08.08.2017].

83

APPENDIX 3 Photos by author - A Jordanian guest room.

84

85

APPENDIX 4 Interview with a refugee - By Christina K Magnussen and Jennie Schneider 8th semester

Ramzia came to Denmark, with her mother, father and six siblings. Her family moved from Afghanistan to Iran to wait out the war, but they didn’t stay for long.

In 1996 her aunt lived in Russia, so Ramzias father decided to move the family to Russia. In 2003 they moved to Denmark. She still has grandparents, uncles and aunts in Afghanistan, and they stay in touch through Skype or Viber.

She started wearing her scarf five years ago, because she discovered her religion in a new way, in Denmark.She meet her husband when she went to high school, and short after they got married in 2013. He is also an Afghan refugee.

DK

Name:

Ramzia Abdul

Age:

24

Status:

Married

Children:

A son

Occupation:

Studies to become a

Russia

Iran

social worker

AFGHAN

Residence:

86

Skanderborg

If you moved home and the car was

RAMZIA

CURRENT

LIVING

CONDITIONS

only so big, what would you bring from STORAGE

here?

“My kitchen stuff. I really like to be a housewife

CHILDREN’S ROOM

MASTER BEDROOM

“Has damp”

“Too small”

KITCHEN “Too small”

LIVING ROOM

that cooks and bake stuff, I like my cooking stuff because I have bought everything myself, This

“Too small”

sofa, my husband chose, I could throw them out!”

BALCONY “To open”

TOILET

What room in you apartment do you spend the most time?

ENTRANCE

“We spend a lot of time here in the living room.

RAMZIAS

I think that Afghan over all spend a lot of time

DREAM

APARTMENT

in their living room.

BALCONY “Enclosed in glass”

The Danish house - I don’t like it, it’s like kitchen in the living room, bedroom is very small, i have a dream like an American house” “I want to have a bigger apartment, because

LIVING ROOM

MASTER BEDROOM

“Room for 20 people”

“Big with room for storage”

sometimes when my family comes here... We sit very tight, so I want a bigger living room, be-

CHILDREN’S ROOM

cause we spend a lot of time in here, sometimes

HALLWAY “Room for storage”

TOILET

when we have guests” OFFICE

KITCHEN

“Extra bedroom”

“Room to eat”

ENTRANCE

87

How would you like your kitchen and

Are there no community activities

livingroom?

here?

“Separate - defiantly separate. Every Afghan

“No, not that I know of. Where my parents are

wish that the living room or bedroom or every-

living, in that building, they went to Djurs som-

thing is separate. Because we cook a lot of food

merland, and Skagen, from their housing asso-

with spices, so sometimes it is better to close

ciation. But there is nothing like that here.”

the door... We actually spend a lot of time in the

“I have just signed up for some volunteer work.

kitchen, because we do a lot of food. ... It is a

To make some, programs for the immigrated

part of being Afghan to cook good food. We are

women here. It’s a project here in Skanderborg

very hospitable {high standards of hospitality}”

in Højvang, Projekt Højvang. Before I have made a swimming event for the women because

How do you find it to integrate with the

I don’t know if you know, but we Muslim women

Danish population?

can’t go to swimming with men. It was two years

ago, but we have just been there one time. All

“After I took the scarf on it has been hard, be-

the women asked me “Eh Ramzia, we want to go

fore that I was a part of the football and hand-

swimming again” so it is really good for them”

ball team. It was easier for me, now when I go out people talk bad about me” “I began to wear I scarf when I was 19-20 years old. When I didn’t have it, I never thought that I would be treated like this when I have it! It’s really hard when such a little thing can make it so much more difficult. I worked at a home for an older couple where I did cleaning, for five years and they were really good. They helped me a lot with my homework, and other things.

Then I began to wear the scarf, and the lady told me not to come anymore, because I was not the Ramzia that I should be. It was the first time, it felt really hard, and I just cried, and cried.”

88

89

APPENDIX 5 Municipality - Social Housing and Refugees

Reference - Lecture: Aarhus municipality. (16.09.2016) Social housing in Aarhus.

90

91

APPENDIX 6 Conference photos taken by author - Helen + Hard gaigning by sharing

92

93

CHANGING SHAPE OF ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICES. City: Aarhus.

new housing model in the professional market. In: RESEARCH CONFERENCE: THE

Helene Stangeland, S. (2017).Helen + hard - Gaining by sharing - introducing a

Reference: