Adaptation processes in Middle-Class housing units

Article title Adaptation processes in Middle-Class housing units.

Interaction with built space through everydayness.

Author Dott.ssa Arch. Cristina Dreifuss-Serrano Professor at Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (Lima, Perú) Professor at Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería (Lima, Perú) Professor at Universidad de Lima (Lima, Perú) cristinadreifuss@gmail.com pcarcdre@upc.edu.pe (+51) 999117969

Team Bach. Alfredo Castro Aguilar, Bach. Adolfo Crosby, Bach. Emilio Jordán Fernández, Bach.

Luis M. Luque, Bach. André Rodriguez Alvarado Luis Aquino, Paul Alonso, Bryan Castillo Dávila, José Cepero, Claudia Fuentes Gamboa, Diego Goycochea, Mariale Hermoza, Alexis Joy Bravo, Mauricio Jumpa, Sebastián Paredes Smith, Karina Paulet, Samuel Povis Dávila, Arantxa Rejas, Pierina Sánchez, Saul Ugaz, Jorgesaúl Vasquez Chigne

Keywords Housing, changes, everydayness, types

INTRODUCTION “Was there, indeed, any way in which one might, by observation of culture as it is, decide in what direction that culture ought to go, in the future? Could one, then, draw the future from the present, by any kind of objective process?

(Alexander, 2002 [1980], p. 349)

The practices of contemporary everyday life and the apparent unlimited resources the marketplace offers, makes it a common practice the interaction of the inhabitants with their houses. From choosing the colour of the curtains to the subdivision of spaces or the creation of new ones – often even occupying public areas –, it is usual for residents to change both the interior and the exterior of their dwellings in order to adapt them to their specific needs (Allen, 1978 [1972]).

The case-based study, conducted for most of the current academic year, parts from the original design of successful mid-class housing projects of the 50s and 60s, and aims to create a catalogue of the changes users have done to the housing units, public spaces, and commercial areas, and the way those have affected both the use of internal spaces and the external image of the building. Through interviews, photographic registration and sketches, the study establishes a perspective on mid-class residential neighbourhoods parting from the changing of the inhabitants’ needs and the new shapes emerging from them.

THE BASIS Recently it is common to find the term “informality” referred to processes of occupation and housing. In architecture, it usually refers to abusive takings of private or state land, progressive and sometimes uncontrolled urban growth, and to processes that on the one hand, offer alternative solutions to the inhabitants’ demands and, on the other hand, are unable to exercise control on those processes.

However, informality does not take place only these situations. Within the activities of our daily life there are many actions we take not necessarily regulated by formal mechanisms. The intensity of such acts, spontaneous, with an everyday basis and, in many cases, essential to our survival, depends on the extent to which the environment is flexible enough to accommodate these practices and on our own creativity.

In the case of housing, informal processes are part of living. Inhabitants interact with their environment, adapt it, try to rend it more comfortable, personalise it, and through all said actions, they make it their own.

Single family houses offer no great difficulty in these processes. With or without the help of professionals, the homeowner can expand, reduce or simply change it as deemed necessary.

Multifamily housing, however, embedded in buildings with a rigid and unchanging structure, present other challenges to its inhabitants. Customization and informal processes will be carried on, but within an environment that has many other limitations and, therefore, allows fewer and less intense responses.

In Lima, similarly to what happened in many other cities around the world, from the 1940s onward the construction of middle-class housing was strongly promoted i. This dwelling complexes were developed as autonomous communities and included non only housing units (apartment buildings and single family houses of various sizes), but also neighbourhood services, shops, and recreational areas.

In time, the use of space and housing is equally or even more intense than at the moment of their construction and initial occupation. Over the decades, the various inhabitants of the housing complexes have altered the environment in subtle or significant ways, and have adapted the existing structures to individual and group needs, rarely consulting a professional in the process.

THE RESEARCH In March 2012 a team is convened for the purpose of documenting the interventions made by the inhabitants of middle-class housing projects built between 1945 and 1960. The information gathered from individual cases through interviews, drawings and photography would identify typologies (Alexander, 2002 [1980], p. 354) within the changes of both the housing units and the common areas.

Four projects were selected (Table 1) each containing housing units (apartments or houses), public spaces, business and community services. The unique characteristics that gave rise to the projects at the time of their design and building were not considered, but the current use of their facilities and the relevance of these projects today within the study and practice of architecture.

Of the selected projects, the Conjunto Residencial San Felipe was chosen as the first case study.

It is a complex of 1599 housing units, grouped in two-family housing, flats and duplex apartments, in buildings of 17, 14, 10 and 3 storeys; the volumes are located around gardens and recreation areas, parking lots and commercial buildings (Figure 1).

After an initial walk around the area of the Residencial, we identified four types of intervention: four towers planned in the first stage with their surrounding buildings, three-story structures, eight longitudinal ten-story buildings and eleven fourteen-story towers. The first blocks were not considered for the study, since they constitute a somewhat closed complex by themselves, not very related to the rest of the Residencial. The units inside the three-story buildings were also rejected because they presented formal characteristics more related to single-family housing and this, quite different from most of the residential homes. We focused thus on the projects of ten and fourteen storeys (Figure 2).

The former are divided into blocks that house 35 duplex units, five in each level. The latter has 56 housing units, four per level. A group of eighteen students and graduates were commissioned to interview people in a random sample of 5 apartments per building. A second group of four performed the analysis of public spaces and commercial areas.

THE FINDINGS Housing Every one of the more than 50 analysed apartments had some level of modification. In some cases, the changes were subtle and had more to do with new finishes or adaptation of uses within the space provided by the existing architecture. The vast majority however, showed substantial changes inside what is allowed by the apartment’s structure.

Based on this first approach, the buildings studied were classified as “hard” (14-storey towers) or “soft” (10-storey buildings), according to the extent to which the original structure allowed the user to make changes. In the first case, any change in the configuration of the department should occur within the bounds of the original unit. The “soft” buildings, being framed structures with balconies and high ceilings, allowed people to make changes beyond the initial boundaries of the housing unit, visible from the outside of the building (Figure 2).

The changes made by users respond to various motivations. In some cases, family growth requires additional rooms or more space in the existing ones, the way of life of the inhabitants may have changed in the 50 years of the Residencial’s existence, economic needs have promoted new uses, new technologies ask for different spaces (Figure 3).

Given the diversity, the issue of classification according to types was raised, taking into consideration that they “can assume particular configurations until their modification; this happens when some of their aspects are conveyors of social, functional, constructive and cultural contents, not responsive to the needs of a determinate epoch” (Gazzola, 1990, p. 61).

We established thus two main categories: types of intervention (change of dimensions, bounds, use or decoration) and constructive resources (new structural construction, new partition construction, demolition, and accessories and finishes) (Table 2).

Within these categories, the reasons are diverse. They have been grouped into five main motivations: (1) change of habits, by residents who start new economic activities, buy new

furniture that affect the use of space, or age and consequently change their needs and habits; (2) growth or decrease of the family, which may require new spaces, resources to guarantee some privacy and independence or, conversely, a partially occupied housing, which may give rise to the introduction of new uses; (3) safety, because of the conditions of a city like Lima, the limits’ enclosures are among the top priorities when families alter their homes; (4) comfort, through boundaries, expansions or adaptations of the spaces, when the product offered by the architect is not completely satisfactory for the inhabitant, since it does not shelter its customs or possessions adequately; (5) image, psychological and social factors to be shown inside and by the house, as an extension of the everydayness and preferences of its inhabitants ii.

Evidently, this simplification does not cover each of the individual cases seen in the stories of the families interviewed. However, it allows us to establish a starting point for understanding the changes, and even an anticipation of possible future changes.

Public space and commerce Modifications to the public space occurred due more to the public adminitrators’ initiatives than because of the preferences of the inhabitants themselves. This is, in fact, one of the constant complaints of the dwellers: except the building of playgrounds, most initiatives such as fencing of gardens, placement of benches and occupation of plazas have not been well received.

Of special interest are the elements limiting spaces. The land occupied by the Residencial is open. However, by the placing of the volumes and the generation of filters through public space (gardens, sidewalks, parking lots), it creates a sense of gradual privacy when walking inside the complex (Figure 4). This has been accentuated by the neighbours’ interventions on the ground floors of the buildings, with the placement of enclosure elements.

In the commercial areas, the modifications have been due to changes in ownership or use adaptations to new businesses. The original concrete structure serves to support the billboards and the colours of this structure change, depending on the image of the stores.

The premises located on the ground floor of the housing units have a local character and are used almost exclusively by the neighbours of the Residencial. The commercial area, the nearby public areas and parking lots have a wider scope, so that the intensity of use of space is much higher than in the rest of the complex (Figure 5). It is in this area where the most significant changes have occurred with the construction of the Peruvian-Japanese Cultural Centre and a Health Facility.

QUESTIONS RAISED What determines the categories “soft” or “hard” in a building?

In “soft” buildings the occupation of the roof could be possible (Figure 6), but, unlike other projects such as the Conjunto Residential Mirones (Figure 7), the neighbours have prevented this from happening. In the “hard” ones, however, where structural rigidity and lack of gaps rend impossible the implementation of major changes in the houses, there is such occupation.

Conceivably, the construction system is not the only factor that determines the degree of flexibility of housing; it also depends on the control mechanisms established by the inhabitants.

Are the interventions of the inhabitants a viable solution to the problems of standardization or to the particularities of individual use not covered by the architect?

In the original design, the apartments located in the corners of “soft” buildings are exactly like those located in the centre of the volume. The inhabitants of these units, in many cases, have occupied the hallway, which is a common circulation, and have limited it as part of their homes.

Spatially, it is a more interesting ending for said hallway, which otherwise would finish abruptly in a railing. This is, of course, an abusive occupation, but the consequences can be seen as beneficial not only for that particular resident but for the whole as well. On the other hand, the openings onto the blind side walls rarely contribute to the building’s image as a whole (Figure 8).

How far the structure and form of the building can be planned, so that inhabitants’ interventions do not affect substantially the perception of its outside image?

“Hard” buildings with reinforced concrete façades imply that any extension of the limits of the department is complex and costly structural intervention. The exterior is, therefore, uniform, and in accordance to the architect’s design. The “soft” buildings, on the contrary, allow its inhabitants a change of dimensions within the free areas inside the structure, without excessive structural complexity. The exterior of the building is affected (Figure 1), but frequently the final appearance does not seem to be altered in a dramatic way.

This is, according to many, the architectural success of this type of buildings in the Residencial San Felipe: that the proposed structure hosts changes by users without them raising substantial alterations to the external image.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS After the first stage of the research, there are some issues to consider for its continuation. The applied methodology has responded to the initial requirements, although some of the students met with wary attitudes from the inhabitants, who sometimes denied them access to their homes for safety reasons. In groups of families that, over the years, have forged strong community ties, it may be necessary to firstly establish contact with the board and/or management groups, for attaining a greater acceptance by neighbours.

Within the case studied, “soft” examples offer their inhabitants considerable flexibility that allows changes in the distribution and unit boundaries. However, even in the “hard” units that do not give this situation, we have found significant changes made by users. Presumably, modifications will occur, to a greater or lesser extent, and, from this point of view, the construction of dwellings using rigid and less adaptable systems will force the users to artificial behaviours that can cause poor connection or identity with their houses and environment. This hypothesis should be confronted with the following case studies during the next stages.

An overly flexible structure, on the other hand, will lead to an external image with little cohesion, often messy, that can produce the same effect of disconnection between inhabitants and environment, as well as rejection by the external community. Torre David, submitted by Venezuela at the recent Venice Biennale, is a clear example of this situation.

Does housing projects of the second half of the 20th century adapt to ever-changing uses and patterns of the early 21st century?

We believe that change of use is not an exclusive feature of the 20th or 21st centuries; social, economic and cultural changes have always challenged architecture. It cannot claim to be an eternal creation, frozen, while still being able to survive over time without any alteration. It is not feasible either, to ask from the users to move between buildings as required by changes in their personal or family lives. Flexibility then arises as a viable solution.

Currently pending are the other three stages of the study, which will assess whether the phenomena identified are isolated cases or whether it is a trend of behaviour that can be overlapped to more general situations.

Understanding the reasons behind the changes, and documenting such changes, could lead to the establishment of design criteria for new housing units that may pose flexible solutions, modifiable by their inhabitants iii. This will prolong the life of buildings and would make them adaptable to future uses, not envisaged by the architect. Today, groups like Elemental in Chile, among others, have raised the idea of progressive housing on a basic structure. Few of these projects, however, start from a study of the changes already made in housing, which could allow the design of more effective basic structures or, in the words of Alexander, allow to “draw the future from the present.”

Bibliography Alexander, C., 2002 [1980]. The Nature of Order. An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe. Berkeley: The Center for Environmental Structure.

Allen, E., 1978 [1972]. La casa "otra". La autoconstrucción según el M.I.T.. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.

Córdova Valdivia, A., 2007. El Estado y el Problema de la Vivienda, 1945-2005. [Online] Available at: http://www.posgrado.arquitectura.edu.pe/files/u1/50_a__os_de_vivienda_en_el_Peru.pdf [Accessed 07 10 2012].

Ekambi-Schmidt, J., 1974. La percepción del hábitat. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.

Gazzola, L., 1990. Architettura e tipologia. Roma: Officina Edizioni.

Ludeña Urquizo, W., 2004. Lima. Historia y urbanismo en cifras 1821-1970. Kiel: Geographischen Institut der Universität Kiel.

Martuccelli, E., 2000. Arquitectura para una ciudad fragmentada. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.

Vuarnesson, P. & Atelier-3, 1973 [1970]. En busca de un hábitat personalizado a base de estructuras tradicionales y equipos industrializados. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.

Name Unidad Vecinal Nº 3 Unidad Vecinal Mirones Conjunto Residencial Palomino Conjunto Residencial San Felipe

Promoting institution Corporación Nacional de la Vivienda Fondo de Salud y Bienestar Social Sociedad de Beneficencia Pública de Lima Junta Nacional de la Vivienda

Dates

Housing units

Architects

El Cercado

1945-49

1120

Dammert, Morales, Valega, Dorich, Montagne, Benitez, Belaúnde

El Cercado

1952-65

1256

Agurto, Ciriani

El Cercado

1964-65

1675

Miró Quesada, Agurto, Correa, Sánchez Griñán

Jesús María

1964-68

1599

Ciriani, Smirnoff, Ramírez, Crousse, Páez, Vásquez

District

Table 1: Study cases (Data from Ludeña, 2004: 86-90).

Figure 1: General layout of Conjunto Residencial San Felipe today (Castro, Crosby, Dreifuss)

Figure 2: "Los Cedros" building (Dreifuss)

Figure 3: Apartments’ different modifications in dining rooms and living rooms (Alonso, Dreifuss, Fuentes, Joy, Jumpa, Paredes, Paulet, Povis, Rejas)

Decoration

Use

Bounds

Dimensions

Close balcony to enlarge living room Enlarge rooms towards balcony Enlarge entrance towards common hallway Reduce service room Occupation of the roof Aerial light on topmost floor Close down window towards common hallway Close down open lattices in laundry room Close down air vent in bathroom Remove glass between kitchen and laundry Remove internal walls for floor plan Eliminate service bedroom to enlarge kitchen Replace lattices for glass panes Enlarge window towards common hallway Open new windows in building's lateral walls Private circulations bedroom-kitchen Open inside windows between rooms Put on bars corridors, halls and stairs Turn laundry into dining room Turn service bathroom into guest bathroom Turn service bedroom into dining room Turn service bedroom into study Turn residual space into small study Turn residual space into bathroom Eliminate cupboard under the stairs Redistribution of bedrooms Subdivision of bedrooms Rent part of the house to other uses Turn ground floor stores into houses Finishes in original furniture Eliminate original furniture Mirrors in blind walls Ornaments in structural elements Fake ornamental structural elements Change floors and wall surfaces Change sanitary equipment Change woodwork New furniture in residual spaces Ornaments in entrances and common halls

Table 2: Types of interventions and resources used (Dreifuss)

Accessories, furnishing

Demolition

Type of intervention

New construction (structural) New construction (partition)

Constructive resources

Figure 4: Privacy levels, cross section (Crosby)

Figure 5: Users in public areas (Castro, Crosby)

Figure 6: Roof in "soft" buildings in San Felipe (Dreifuss)

Figure 7: Occupation of the roof in Conjunto Residencial Mirones (Dreifuss)

Figure 8: Side of "soft" buildings (Dreifuss)

i

“No less important, however, is the influence of the international scene then [1945-48]. The Second World War had destroyed entire cities and the issue of reconstruction was discussed even before peace was achieved (it was famous, for example, a speech by Churchill on the subject). The construction of new housing was thus a universal concern.” (Córdova Valdivia, 2007, p. 2) ii

“Human sciences have shown us the importance of man's attachment to their 'territory' and the need to have to get your own domain. He or she transforms their living space, and when this is not possible, leaves various types of marks (paintings, posters, pictures...). Thus they aim to integrate it to their own existence. Their home is the place that exhibits as much as protects.” (Vuarnesson & Atelier-3, 1973 [1970], p. 85).

iii

The idea of flexibility in architecture was developed during modernity and there are many examples of projects that took this premise as a starting point. In Peru, an emblematic example is the competition "La casa barata que crece" (The cheap house that grows), organised by the newspaper La Prensa in 1954. The project "was obviously inspired by the self constructing processes [...] in parts of Latin American cities that grow thanks to their own people’s work.” (Martuccelli, 2000, p. 140).