COHAB.

Berliner Hochschule für Technik Berlin Fachbereich IV Architektur und Gebäudetechnik

MASTERARBEIT Wohnungsbauprojekt unter Berücksichtigung psychologischer Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf die Gesellschaft und einer veränderten Bedeutung des öffentlichen und privaten Raums Housing Project with Consideration of Psychological Impact of the Pandemic on Society and a Transformation of the Meaning of Public and Private Space

COHAB. R O T E I N S E L C O H A B I TA T I O N

Betreuer: Dipl.-Ing. Henning von Wedemeyer Gutachter: M.A. Architekt Luis B. Mola Vorgelegt von Cantug Özcan & Eralp Orkun Cihan

‚Even if the pandemic might continue through the next couple of years, an ideal architecture should still reflect our ideal for living, instead of being a capsule that will only isolate people.‘ Architect Ma Yansong

CONTENT 1.

INTRODUCTION - The Issue - Pandemic and Psychology - Impact of Technology and Digitalization in Architecture

2.

ROTE INSEL - Site Analysis - Neighborhood - History

3.

APPROACH -

4.

5.

Concept Co-Living One Shared House 2030 Design Strategies Social, Ecological and Economic Sustainability

SINGLE UNITS

PAGE 05 07 09 11

13 14 18 20

27 28 30 31 32 36

- Design Strategies - Single Unit Design

45 46 50

COHAB.

55

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

103

3

INTRODUCTION - THE ISSUE - PANDEMIC AND PSYCHOLOGY - IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITALIZATION IN ARCHITECTURE

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

5

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

6

THE ISSUE

Pandemics that have afflicted the entire world have always been a threat to humankind throughout history and have profoundly affected their lifestyles. Two years ago, a coronavirus emerged in China and spread around the world, deeply impacting the dynamics of our lives. The virus, known as Covid-19, has become a „pandemic“ with an exceptional speed. In this process of working remotely, wearing masks, being away from public spaces and increasing social distance, our perception of living, which lasted for a century, began to change.

Human beings as social creatures began to carry out the practices of public space at home. People changed their daily habits, and as a result of this transformation, the way they perceived the spaces also changed.

People tried to cope with these problems within the limits of existing architectural solutions and available spatial possibilities.

But it started to be sensed that previous architectural attempts no longer met today‘s requirements in terms of space utilization and purposes. In fact, the pandemic has accelerated something that has been going on for a long time: Digitalization.

Digitization in architecture and daily life is becoming more commonplace with the development of factors such as digital tools, machine learning, fabrication technologies, artificial intelligence, metaverse and Big Data. These technologies are also having a major impact on our daily lives, routines, and spatial experiences.

Currently, our homes are not designed for this new era. The ultimate principles of a home are shelter and a safe environment for its users since the agricultural era. Whether it‘s raining, storming, snowing or sunny outside, home is the place to seek refuge.

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

Throughout history, the concept of home has also changed. The home has transformed from a public space in the archaic times to a private space in the industrial times, when every family had its separate residence. Now, in the 21st century, the data age, the concept of home is changing again... With the development of factors such as digital tools, machine learning, fabrication technologies, artificial intelligence, metaverse and Big Data, digitalization is becoming more commonplace in architecture and daily life. These technologies are also having a major impact on our daily lives, routines, and spatial experiences.

With the pandemic, this evolution has been accelerated by the fact that people have to spend more time at home and are starting to do activities such as socializing, work, and education digitally from home.

Home is playing an increasingly diverse role in our daily lives. With the pandemic and digitalization, the home has become not only a shelter, but also an office, a restaurant, and a place for entertainment.

The spaces that were considered sufficient for daily needs before the pandemic can now no longer meet them. Not only are we spending more time at home, but we are also looking for new uses for our regular spaces. Our homes are no longer just for living and sleeping.

The goal of this study is to raise consciousness of the changing priorities in the use of space, to highlight the spatial issues that emerge at different scales, and to develop new design principles for the future of housing design. The housing project designed at the end of this research should reflect the new functionality of the future home and incorporate the relationship between private, public and in-between spaces.

7

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

BLIND LIGHT II, Sean Kelly Gallery, Photograph by Stephen P. Harris, 2007

8

‚There is a connection between a person‘s mental and physical health. If the person does not experience intense psychological stress, the immune system is also more resistant. Stress has a negative impact on the immune system‘s responses. For this reason, taking measures to protect mental health also makes it more resistant to disease.‘

PA NDEMIC A ND PSYCHOLOGY

The impact of the virus on the whole world has caused a collective trauma. It has brought many consequences to the society such as fear, anxiety, necrophobia, depression, acute loneliness, mood disorders, social isolation and economic difficulties, as well as a change in living conditions.

The most common emotion during a pandemic is fear for one‘s own health or the health of those close to one. Pandemics pose a psychological challenge because they trigger such a fundamental emotion. A study conducted in China found that 24.5% of 1210 participants were psychologically affected minimally, 21.7% affected mildly, and 53.8% affected moderately or severely during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The fact that people are threatened by a virus they can‘t pinpoint and don‘t know how it works also triggers a sense of insecurity. Fear of the unknown is one of the basic fears, just like fears and anxieties about security. In fact, a study

by Yeen Huang and Ning Zhao found that one in three people suffered from an anxiety disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over time, this anxiety disorder can turn into a social phobia and then develop into a necrophobia.

Necrophobia is an intense anxiety disorder characterized by the fear of death or fear of locations, objects, people or situations associated with death. With all types of emotions, obsession with death becomes evident in both fascination and objectification.

Staying at home constantly due to the pandemic, increased anxiety, depression, stress symptoms and social isolation has led to an increase in domestic violence and child abuse. The fact that calls to the domestic violence hotline increased by 25% in seven days after the UK government began strict enforcement of social isolation and lockdown during COVID-19 shows that the pandemic has increased the incidence of domestic violence.

Just as Covid-19 doesn‘t affect everyone in the same way - some show very severe symptoms, others overcome the disease without realizing it - the psychological impact of the pandemic varies from person to person. Many things can affect this, from the size of the room we have to quarantine to our current psychological state.

Another psychological response to the pandemic is stress. There is a connection between a person‘s mental and physical health. If the person does not experience intense psychological stress, the immune system is also more resistant. Stress has a negative impact on the immune system‘s responses. For this reason, taking measures to protect mental health also makes it more resistant to disease.

The potential psychological impact of the pandemic may be triggered not only by the threat to life, but also by its impact on daily routines.

The major social harm of the pandemic is that it prevents people from leaving their houses and condemns them to social isolation. The lack of social interaction can trigger feelings of loneliness and and lead to depression. The fact that the pandemic disrupts the balance of daily life, its impact on social, economic, education or business life, and the experience of uncertainty; it may bring out depression-related feelings such as hopelessness, sadness, guilt, helplessness, or loneliness.

The feeling of being deprived of one‘s freedom, the inner experience of not being able to do what one wants to do, leads to a sense of frustration. Therefore, individuals who feel frustrated by the pandemic may react more aggressively than they normally would. This is a factor that can lead to a deterioration of already limited social relationships.

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

9

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

‘In the future, digital tools will come… closer to our human bodies, enabling us to more conveniently access and utilise digital information in our daily lives. Interactivity and connectivity to virtual data and digital information will be stronger than ever before.’ Architect Soomeen Hahm.

NFT Artwork - Age of Smart Machine, by Eralp Orkun Cihan, 2022

10

IMPAC T OF T ECHNOL O GY A ND DIGI TA L IZ AT ION IN ARCHITECTURE

Digitalization in architecture and daily life is becoming more commonplace with the development of factors such as digital tools, machine learning, fabrication technologies, artificial intelligence, metaverse and Big Data. These technologies also have a great impact on our daily lives, routines, and spatial experiences. The rise of digital technologies is also a great opportunity to change the general understanding of the world and globalization from an architectural perspective. Digitalization has begun to impact architecture, not only in terms of design and building simulations, but also in how we experience the built environment. In addition to seeking solutions to technical problems, we are increasingly asking how our lifestyles will change for a sustainable future.

Digitization, which took hold in industries such as manufacturing and automotive at the end of the 20th century, began in architecture before any other design discipline with projections of utopian spaces and future society in the 1960s and 1970s, and increased rapidly from the late 1980s. One of the pioneers of this development, Cedric Price, experimented with a „laboratory of fun and university of streets“ in the 1960s with the Fun Palace he designed in East London. This utopian project was never built, but Price‘s design was visionary at the time, incorporating a flexible framework and programmable spaces that could change and adapt to different needs and activities. But it has become a questionable and applicable experience to the present day. Later, inspired by this project, Renzo Piano designed the Centre Pompidou in Paris. Here, people could experience the space freely without being guided by the architecture itself, and the space could be changed according to needs.

Cedric Price, „Fun Palace: Interıor Perspective“, ca. 1960-1964. Cedric Price fonds; Collection Centre Canadien d‘Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal. (Image CCA)

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

Then the Internet came into our lives. The development of communication technologies not only profoundly changed people‘s lives, but also made the collaboration inherent in architecture faster than ever before. The transition from the machine age to the data age has become increasingly integrated into the lives of not only architects, but all of humanity. The Internet, which was at first used only as a communication and information tool, is taking up more and more space in our everyday lives in the 21st century. Although it was initially used as a tool for a specific purpose

in architecture (how something is designed or built), it later began to transform into a digital spatial experience as envisioned by the pioneers of utopian architecture in the past. Especially in recent years, as hardware and sensor technologies have become more accessible, there has also been an increased sense that architecture can be performative and alive, which begins with algorithms and simulations physically helping in the design process. This has led to people spending more time in digital environments, such as remote work, social platforms, online education and games.

Although digital experiences were initially accepted only by certain users, this world has become more visible due to the increase in remote work and the lack of social interaction, especially with the pandemic. Most importantly, the programs, simulations, and metaverses that emerged to eliminate the lack of social interaction changed the entire perspective of technology. With the ability for people to remotely connect to their workplaces, participate in meetings via video, and understand the security of blockchain technology, this routine has led to a rise in questions about what our daily lives can look like, not only during the pandemic, but in the future.

All this digital world and the new experiences of our lives have begun to be considered not only in terms of production and design techniques on the physical side of architecture, but also what kind of spatial needs this change will create for us in our homes. At this time when the boundaries between home, work and social environment are beginning to disappear, we as users and architects must accept that current housing architecture is insufficient in this regard. New needs and uses have given us a new demand for space. The gradual increase in the world‘s population, the overpopulation of cities and the resulting housing problem, the affordability of our homes is becoming a challenge for architects in meeting these needs. All these new challenges have shown that the new housing should be created with affordable, compact, flexible, accessible, sustainable and ecological solutions.

11

ROTE INSEL -SITE ANALYSIS -NEIGHBORHOOD -HISTORY

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

ROTE INSEL 14

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

15

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

„When in 1878 - the SPD was banned at that time by the Socialist Law Emperor Wilhelm I returned to Berlin from a cure lasting several months after two assassination attempts and the city was engulfed in „hurrah patriotism“ and a sea of black and white red flags, the Schöneberg beer publisher Bäcker from Sedanstraße (today Leberstraße) had hung the red flag out of the window. For this outrageous act, he was expelled from the country. From then on, the Sedanviertel was called the Rote Insel (the Red Island).“ - Wenzel, 1983

16

20 COHAB.

Insel Tour, Historische Informationen zu einem Stadtraum - ZERA berlin, 2008

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

1 SCHÖNEBERGER INSEL | BAHNHOF 2 DIE ERSTE NEUE STRASSE: SEDANSTRASSE 3 HANDEL UND GEWERBE 4 KÖNIGIN-LUISE-GEDÄCHTNISKIRCHE 5 ZWÖLF-APOSTEL-KIRCHHOF 6 DIE KOLONNENSTRASSE 7 ANHALTER BAHN | KOLONNENBRÜCKE 8 MILITÄRBAHNHOF SCHÖNEBERG 9 WILHELM-KABUS-STRASSE 10 ALFRED-LION-STEG 11 EISENBAHN-PIONIERE | MILITÄRISCHE NUTZUNG 12 GEWERBEGEBIET NAUMANNSTRASSE 13 WIDERSTAND IM NS: ANNEDORE UND JULIUS LEBER 14 MARLENE DIETRICH 15 »ROTE INSEL« 16 VERKEHRSPLANUNG WESTTANGENTE 17 DER GASOMETER IV 18 SCHÖNEBERGER GASWERK | EUREF-CAMPUS 19 HANS BALUSCHEK 20 COHAB. 17

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

Google Earth

Google Earth

18

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

19

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

Sedanstraße (now Leberstraße) with a view of Schöneberg station, 1910 Foto Jantsch, Archiv zur Geschichte von Tempelhof und Schöneberg

20

18 7 7

HISTORY

19 0 0

1877 - Karl Baedecker: Mittel- und Norddeutschland; Handbuch für Reisende; Leipzig 1885.

1888 - Situationsplan der Haupt- und Residenzstadt Berlin und ihrer Umgebung, bearbeitet von Liebenow (Ausschnitt) Bezirksamt Tempelhof-Schöneberg, Fachbereich Vermessung und Geoinformation

Wohnhäuser mit Geschäften in der Sedanstraße 19/20 (heute Leberstraße 36/38), um 1910 Archiv zur Geschichte von Tempelhof und Schöneberg

The Rote Insel is located in the east of Schöneberg, between the S-Bahn stations Südkreuz, Schöneberg and Yorkstraße.

Around 1870, the manor owner and land developer Wilhelm Ferdinand Lenz acquired a long strip of land east of the railroad line. Here he had a new road built in the middle of the fields: Sedanstrasse, today Leberstrasse.

Its orientation from north to south determined the later street planning of Schöneberg Island. In the years that followed, private land developers and land companies bought up additional land from Schöneberg farmers and had mainly tenements built. By 1905, the settlement of the island was largely complete. From the first development with small country houses and three- to four-story tenements, most of which had stables and industrial rooms at the back. and commercial premises at the back, hardly anything has survived today.

Around 1900, Sedanstraße developed into the most important business street on Schöneberg Island. Trade and commerce settled here. Almost every house housed a store or a small business. For example, there was a cigar factory at No. 8 (today Leberstrasse 16), a beer wholesaler right next door (Leberstrasse 18) and a bakery at Sedanstrasse 11 (Leberstrasse 22).

At Sedan Street 19/20 (Leber Street 36/38) there was a cigar store and a saddler.

The density of pubs and stores was very high, partly because of the many military personnel who lived on Schöneberger Insel or served here.

In the middle of the 19th century, the area of today‘s Schöneberger Insel was still largely undeveloped. But it was already separated from the surrounding area by railroad tracks. East of the village of Schöneberg, in the midst of fields, ran the tracks of the Berlin-Potsdam Railroad. This so-called „Stammbahn“ had been opened in 1838 as the first railroad line in Prussia.

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

18 8 8

21

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

KÖNIGIN-LUISE GEDÄCHTNISKIRCHE

Wohnhäuser mit Geschäften in der Sedanstraße 19/20 (heute Leberstraße 36/38), um 1910 Archiv zur Geschichte von Tempelhof und Schöneberg

22

In 1905, there were already 30,000 people living on Schöneberger Insel, but there was no church of its own; the nearest one was St. Paul the Apostle Church. For this reason, the Protestant congregation acquired a plot of land from the Bahnhof Schöneberg Bodengesellschaft mbH a plot of land on the Gustav-Müller-Platz in order to build a church for the residents of the island. The inauguration of the Königin-Luise-Gedächtniskirche took place on March 10, 1912 on the 136th birthday of Queen Luise of Prussia, after whom the church is named. In the vernacular the building received nicknamed the „cheese bell“ because of its distinctive neo-baroque dome. The working class on Schöneberg Island was traditionally close to the the SPD or KPD and were not religious.

Zeichnung des Neubaus der Königin-LuiseGedächtniskirche, Ansicht von der Sedanstraße, 1910 Bauarchiv Tempelhof-Schöneberg

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

Foto Ansichtskarte / Postkarte Berlin Schöneberg, Gustav-Müller-Platz 2, Königin-Luise-Gedächtniskirche, 1937

For the construction of the church on Gustav-Müller-Platz, the municipality had announced a competition in 1908. Three of the 168 designs submitted were awarded prizes, but none was implemented. The realized design by Friedenau architect Fritz Berger emerged from a subsequent „closer“ competition with five selected participants. Based on the model of a baroque domed church, Berger designed an octagonal central building, which is now a listed as a historical monument. The church survived the Second World War largely unscathed, and the facade has been preserved as it was when it was built. The interior, which is more than 15 meters high, was extensively repaired in 1962 and the altar area was redesigned by the Berlin artist Volker Haase in 1979. After more than 100 years, the outer shell of the church is in need of renovation. In 2016, work began on renovation in keeping with the preservation order.

23

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

Julius & Annedore Leber Archiv

IN RE SIS TA NCE: ANNEDORE UND JULIUS LEBER 18 . 0 3 .19 0 4 -2 4 .10 .19 6 8 16 .11.18 9 1- 0 5 . 0 1.194 5

24

The neighborhood is connected with the life story of Julius Leber and his wife Annedore. Leber was an SPD politician and resistance fighter against National Socialism. He was arrested by the National Socialists after his re-election as a member of the Reichstag in 1933 and was not released from a concentration camp until 1937. After his release, he worked as a coal merchant on Torgauer Strasse. Leber was active in various resistance groups. On the basis of a denunciation, he was arrested by the Secret State Police on July 5, 1944, sentenced to death in a show trial before the People‘s Court, and on January 5, 1945, in the Berlin-Plötzensee penitentiary.

Through Leber‘s connections to the resistance, the inconspicuous coal shop with its small office building became a secret meeting place. It was a place for networking and making contacts. In 1943/44 in particular, leading figures of the Kreisau Circle and the military resistance also met there with Julius Leber. At the end of March 1944, the property was badly hit by bombs. On July 5, 1944, Julius Leber was arrested by the Gestapo in the coal shop.

Annedore Leber continued to run the coal business after her husband‘s death. After the coal store‘s buildings had been destroyed in the Second World War, she initially moved into rooms at Torgauer Strasse 7 opposite.

In 1950, she had a single-story office building erected on the neighboring property of the former coal store. It also housed the Mosaik publishing house (until 1962), which published the most important publications on resistance to National Socialism at the time. Annedore Leber had founded the publishing house in the early 1950s - against the spirit of the times.

After Annedore Leber‘s death in 1969, the premises were re and the building was remodeled several times.

Zeitzeugen zur Kohlenhandlung von Julius Leber gesucht Berliner Woche,Ralf Liptau, 2013

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

25

APPROACH - CONCEPT -CO-LIVING - ONE SHARED HOUSE 2030 - DESIGN STRATEGIES - SOCIAL, ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMICAL SUSTAINABLIT Y

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

CONCEPT

SCHUMACHER QUARTIER DIE CHARTA Für eine zukunftsweisende Quartiersentwicklung, Tegel Projekt GmbH, Oktober 2019

28

In the period in which we have moved from the industrial age to the technology age, especially after the pandemic, the user profile, the main sources of the city and the way people live have also changed. Large companies working in large open office spaces and high-density working zones in large industrial areas have been replaced by more digital, smaller work groups. Due to the intense immigration of qualified professionals and the promotion of technology, especially in Berlin, the percentage of startups and small businesses or individuals in the city‘s user profile has increased substantially. The fact that people working in offices began to work in home-office caused a high increase in the rate of individual work. As a result, increased overlap of working systems and personal living spaces, altered daily life routines, and the resulting lack of social interaction occurred. It has been shown that the problem can be solved not only by eliminating the lack of housing stocks, but also by finding more ecological, sustainable ways of living in which social interaction, in particular, is better handled. The transformation of our daily lives has led architects to question and redesign the way we live in residential spaces.

For these reasons, architectural, urban, social and sociological projects and ideas have been developed that could lead to new ways of living and future projections.

Development of net migration, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS | Laufende Raumbeobachtung des BBSR, GeoBasis-DE / BKG 2019

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

Berlin, especially in the last 5 years, is one of the fastest growing cities in Germany. The reason why it is one of the cities that receive the most immigration from inside and outside the country; It is planned to be a pioneer city especially in the field of technology, ecology and sustainability. This has led to an exacerbation of the housing problem in the city, which in turn has caused higher prices. The problem of affordable housing has become one of the most important issues in Berlin after all other European capitals. For this reason, the government initially tried to create control mechanisms for the pricing of existing apartments.

However, due to population growth, the creation of new residential areas and the reassessment of usable space in the city were considered as solutions, in addition to the regulation of the existing housing stock.

29

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

CO-LIVING

Increasing Population ≠ Less Loneliness

Cohabitation is the term for a living arrangement in which three or more biologically unrelated people share a common living structure. Shared housing will become increasingly attractive to millions of people as they struggle to find adequate and affordable housing in cities in the coming years. The main reason most people find shared living attractive is that it creates new opportunities for living with others. Modern shared housing originated in Denmark in the 1960s. Bodil Graae wrote a newspaper article in 1967 that challenged the structure of the traditional family unit. The article inspired a group of families to develop the Sættedammen housing project in 1972. The Danish term bofællesskab („shared housing“) was introduced in North America by Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett in their 1989 book Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves.

With the world‘s population expected to grow by 1.2 billion people by 2030 - and about 70 percent of us living in cities by then - people may increasingly choose to live together and share household goods and services. But what will communal living look like in 2030? Who is it suitable for? And how might shared living change society? The rise of the so-called sharing economy, combined with our planet‘s rapidly depleting resources and rapidly growing population, is forcing us to rethink the concept of ownership and sharing in our daily lives - including housing.

In the future, we may have to get used to living with other people - but what opportunities does co-living offer us? And what is so special about living together that might make us give up our privacy and redefine what we mean by a home?

SPACE10 has begun researching and designing collaborative living concepts as a possible solution to problems such as rapid urbanization, loneliness and the increasing lack of affordable housing on a global scale. For this reason, they conducted a survey on better design decisions for future living spaces by considering people‘s preferences and concerns before creating a blueprint for tomorrow‘s housing.

30

According to the results of this study; most of the people would like to live in close communities of four to ten people. Many of today‘s coliving companies are setting up co-living spaces for hundreds of people.

These are co-living communities with hundreds of bedrooms and huge communal spaces. Most people, however, prefer to be part of as small a community as possible - four to 10 people. The only exception is „couples with children“: they would prefer to be part of a slightly larger community of 10 to 25 people - presumably to share the childcare workload. In any case, no one says they would prefer to live with hundreds of other people.

Will the next generation have a greater acceptance of sharing? Would they give up private spaces for the luxury of connectivity? Will privacy be completely obsolete in the future? Just as children joining neighborhoods can bring together the lives of different families, how can we foster good connections between people through tomorrow‘s living environments?

How can we empower people to form more meaningful interpersonal relationships?

These are questions about the future - which means we should start thinking about them today.

Another interesting finding is that the majority would prefer to live with people from different backgrounds and of different ages. Nowadays we live in our own little echo chambers of information and are surrounded by so many like-minded people. It‘s nice that despite this bubbling, when asked, people prefer to live with people who are different from them.The biggest concern of co-living is that cohabitation would mean a lack of privacy. The majority indicated that cohabitation would be a good way to connect with others and that they would be willing to share their home.

However, they are concerned about the potential invasion of their privacy - and insist that their private space is off-limits to others.

Most people prefer private and shared spaces with defined terms of use. Lydia Choi-Johansson says that „people need a balance between ‚my space‘, ‚your space‘ and ‚our space‘. These findings suggest that we will always have a strong desire to control our space and our things. We live in a time when the boundaries between public and private space are becoming increasingly blurred: The local coffee shop becomes our office or living room, while we share our apartments with strangers via AirBnB and our cars with others via ride-sharing services. This is also a time when we willingly digitize almost every aspect of our lives, when we accept that data about what we do, eat, or say, how we feel, and where we go will be collected and shared by governments and corporations. Maybe that‘s why we still want a physical space that is private and ours.

“Our cities have never been more attractive to the many people. Yet in the context of booming urbanisation, rocketing housing prices, shrinking living spaces and increasing social disconnects, ‘sharing’ will be ‘caring’—more than ever. Co-living isn’t new, but as both space and time are increasingly becoming a luxury, the concept needs a revamp. „ Guillaume Charny-Brunet, SPACE10

ONE SHARED HOUSE 2030, anton & irene + SPACE10

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

31

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

32

COMMON SPACES, COMMON LIVING

FLEXIBLE SPACES, FLEXIBLE FUCTIONS

DIVERSE COMMUNE LIVES

In creating a community life, it is very important how many people come together for which purposes. The number of people gathered in the communities for eating and other daily living activities should not exceed ten people. More people can come together for more social activities such as work and sports.

Therefore, the common areas were formed in 3 stages. Two to six apartments are grouped together on each floor to form small private communities. The rooftops are designed to bring these small communities together and create larger communities. Street-level spaces are assigned to unify the entire neighborhood.

The interests and needs of the community can change at any time. The architecture must adapt to these transformations. Therefore, the common spaces are designed to be sustainable and flexible. Flexible spaces that can open and close, grow and shrink, merge and grow as needed, and change according to community needs... Multifunctional spaces are designed in the common areas for each community, which are available for various activities.

The windows of the common rooms on the roof can be opened and connect the indoor and outdoor spaces. The structure is designed to be extended, if more common interior space is needed in the future.

According to the results of the One Shared House study, different people of various ages and occupations prefer to live in different size communities. In accordance with this, six different communities are created, ranging in size from three to eight people. Users have the possibility to choose the most suitable one among different groups. In this way, not only the diversity of people but also the diversity of communities is ensured.

ROOFS, TERRACES, GARDENS…

COMMUNITY AIDED MANUFACTURING

COLLECTIVE SOLIDARITY

The roofs of the buildings are designed entirely as common spaces. They are open to all building communities. These common spaces include working rooms, multifunctional studios, kitchens, living rooms, terraces, green areas and gardens.

In this way, smaller communities will be able to interact and exchange ideas and socialize. Two of each of the four buildings are connected to each other on the roof, allowing for larger communities.

A social community exist through interactions of people who have developed relationships with each other based on designing, creating, producing and sharing. Therefore, users should be encouraged to produce something together and also individually. In addition to places where users can gather, discuss and design, a maker space is created where they can produce the products they design.

It is very important for a community that people help each other. For this purpose, two platforms, one physical and one online, are created. The online platform is an application through which people can communicate with each other. They are able to discuss ideas, ask questions, post events, meetups or help each other. The physical platform is a swap station where users can exchange their stuff. They can share books or household and garden items they don’t use everyday. This reduces the consumption of the community.

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

33

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

CO-HABITATION L AYERS

W

The disappearance of the boundaries between private and public space, the lack of social interaction; people‘s interest in community life increased, but on the other hand, they were found to be concerned about the boundaries of their private space.

This led to the emergence of new layers of living spaces. One of the concerns of people interested in community life is the size of communities. For this reason, during the development of the project, these layers were separated in a controlled way, and communities of different sizes were formed in the range of 3-10. Between the personal areas, the common areas of each floor are a special community area for each unit on that floor. On the terrace floor of each building, common areas were designed for the small communities in that building, and on the ground floor, the common areas of that neighborhood and community were designed.

34

D I V E R S I T Y O F C O M M O N S PA C E S

As the apartments group together, they form in-between spaces. These spaces between the apartments form the common areas required for the community such as common kitchens, dining rooms and living rooms. These common spaces on each floor are the foundation of community living. The user count and the size of the common area are directly proportional because when a new apartment is added to the system, a new in-between space is formed.

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

Community and public-oriented uses are located on the ground and top floors. The roofs are designed for the communities of the buildings. It includes working rooms, studios, common kitchens and living rooms. The ground floors are intended for public uses.

Library, co-working space, market hall, community and event center, maker space, swap station are located on the ground floor.

It is designed to bring the entire neighborhood together.

35

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y

FOR PEOPLE

36

FOR PLANET

FOR AFFORDABILITY

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

37

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

S O C I A L SUSTAINABILITIY

38

Sustainability is no longer considered as a single environmental concern but as abroad concept that also includes economic and social dimensions.

The social dimension of sustainability with regard to the environmental and economic pillars is the least studied, with more uncertainties in definition and measurement methods. However, in general terms, social sustainability strategies are aimed at improving the quality of human life and pay therefore attention to well-being and the most relevant human needs, such as cultural and psychological ones, adaptability and growth.

Sustainable societies, in turn, are those in which a sustainable community lives, i.e., “places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all” Social sustainability pay attention to the welfare needs, cultural and psychological needs, the need for adaptability and the need for growth and development, which have generally been regarded as the most important human needs in the new society. The main objective of social sustainability is to provide equal or more access to social resources for future generations compared to the current generation.

Pardis Helmy, in her article in Rethinking the Future, writes that social sustainability in architecture requires the following to create a more healthy and sustainable social life:

-Maximizing green open public spaces to enhance community life, not only aesthetically, but also for a healthier life.

-Assuring a comfortable street experience by guaranteeing calm, less polluted, and walkable pedestrian paths.

-Prioritizing visibility through providing interactive ground floor activities as it is the most accessible part of the architecture to the street eye level.

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

39

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITIY

40

Sustainable architecture is architecture that seeks to minimize the negative environmental impact of buildings through improved efficiency and moderation in the use of materials, energy, development space and the ecosystem at large. Sustainable architecture uses a conscious approach to energy and ecological conservation in the design of the built environment.

The idea of sustainability, or ecological design, is to ensure that our use of presently available resources does not end up having detrimental effects to our collective well-being or making it impossible to obtain resources for other applications in the long run.

Ecological sustainability includes everything that is connected with the Earth‘s ecosystems. The requirements for an ecological sustainable building can be listed as follows: Creating a superior environmental quality, utilizing non-toxic and sustainable building materials, eliminating the emissions, efficient heating and cooling using natural ventilation systems, native vegetation with minimal environmental impact to natural surroundings and biodiversity conservation.

BIODIVERSITY Biodiversity is the biological variety and variability of life on Earth. It is a measure of variation at the genetic, species, and ecosystem level.

Architecture can contribute to fostering biodiversity by creating habitat opportunities as part of new developments, protecting on-site habitats and seeking to link them with others further afield. Planted roofs, green facades, roadside trees, together with larger green infrastructure like parks and wetlands, can foster biodiversity by providing habitat for breeding, shelter and food for birds, pollinators and other animals. The construction process is highly disruptive for local fauna and flora, but controlled development and approaches like Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA), where components are fabricated off-site, can significantly minimize the impact.

GREEN SURFACES

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

41

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

ECONOMICAL SUSTAINABILITIY

Wood Structure with Concrete Cores and Ground Floor.

42

MODULARITY

Economic sustainability refers to practices that support long-term economic growth while at the same time reducing the use of natural resources and reducing the environmental impacts of economic activities. It is the very fine balance between cost and true value.

Economic sustainability in architecture can be considered in two ways.

The first is to choose the right materials and minimize construction costs. During the design and construction process, materials should be considered in terms of their cost effectiveness. Using local and sustainable materials can help lower costs and lead to long-term cost efficiency. Prefabricated and mass-produced modular building systems reduce construction costs by reducing the construction time and labor force. This would allow for cheaper construction to provide affordable housing and secure the interests of the community.

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

PREFABRICATION

The second aspect of economic sustainability in architecture relates to the utilize of the building by the users. It includes the costs that are spent during the building life cycle such as maintenance cost, renovation cost and operating cost. In addition, user energy consumption and costs are also included in the scope of economic sustainability. Using passive and active design elements, reducing necessity on artificial light or internal climate control are constructive choices that can be made to reduce energy costs in the future.

43

SINGLE UNITS - DESIGN STRATEGIES - SINGLE UNIT DESIGN

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

45

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

D E S I G N S T R AT E G I E S

46

LESS BOUNDARIES, MORE FREEDOM

LESS WALLS, MORE OPENINGS

For many years, traditional and modern architects have been designing living spaces by bringing four walls together. How can this be changed?

How can people free themselves from these confined spaces? How can spaces be created with no or fewer boundaries? Should a new system be designed to achieve this, or is it possible by using older systems and materials?

When designing a living space, it is common to face one side of the room outward and create a window opening to provide natural light and a relationship with the outside. But now it‘s time to question this relationship and proximity with a new approach. How can the intensity of the connection with the outside world be redefined? More transparency and connection provides relief, but can it cause other problems? How can privacy be maintained while implementing this transparency?

LESS INDIVIDUAL, MORE COMMUNAL

MORE FLEXIBLE, LESS STABLE

The traditional house is inhabited by one person or a family. It has a kitchen, bathroom, living room and bedrooms large enough for its users.

Can this change in the house of the future? Can the function of the house transcend its boundaries and merge with others? How should the housing design respond when the users do their daily activities with their neighbors outside?

The home plays an increasingly diverse role in our lives. Not only are we spending more time at home, but we are also finding new purposes for our spaces. Our home is no longer just for living and sleeping. New activities enabled by technology, such as online education, video calls with business partners, workout classes and social zoom sessions, are expanding the functionality of our home. How can our homes be designed more flexible to allow different functions in the same spaces? How can two different people coexist in one space without interfering with each other?

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

47

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

48

LESS DIVISION, MORE VISUAL ANGLE

MORE EXTERNALITY, MORE COMMUNICATION

In the design of a typical apartment, the rooms face the facades, circulation and toilets are located in the center. This is considered the most effective method of using space. So is it possible to change this procedure? Can it be ensured that the apartments have more than one facade? If so, how can the interrelationships between these facades be strengthened inside? Well, if the apartments have only one facade, how to enhance the relationship with the interior?

During the pandemic we found out that we need more private outdoor spaces. The easiest way to achieve this is to have balconies and terraces.

But how should these balconies be designed and what size should they be? And how should these exterior spaces interrelate to interior spaces?

Why is the communication between inside and outside so important what should be done to strengthen this relationship?

OLD WALLS, NEW FUCTIONS

MORE RAWNESS, MORE TEXTURE

In traditional housing architecture, the architect designs rooms for the user, which consist of four walls. The user then designs his own living environment by choosing the furniture he wants, and in this way the design process is complete. So can we design the entire apartment as a one piece of furniture? Can we ensure the integrity of the house by using the walls as furniture? How does such an integrity in the design of living spaces affect the living experience?

Nature is the place where people psychologically feel the most comfortable and peaceful. Therefore, it is very important to use natural materials with raw textures for the user, who is going to start spending more time at home. So how can we achieve this sense of serenity at home that people feel in nature? What materials provide psychological relief? How should these materials be used?

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

49

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

50

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

51

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

52

6m x 6m

36m²

6m x 9m

54m2

6m x 6m x 2 floors

72m²

6m x 12m

72m²

6m x 9m x 2 floors

108m²

DIVERSITY OF COMMUNITIES A community characterized by diversity can contribute to long term resilient and socially sustainable lifestyle. The easiest way to achieve this through architecture is to design apartments of different types and sizes. Various housing types are designed as a way to create diverse, equitable, and sustainable communities. Five different types of apartments have been designed as shown in the table above.

In addition, diversity was promoted by creating different sizes communities. Communities were formed in seven different sizes, ranging from three to nine people. The graphic on the right shows the proportions of the groups.

RATIO OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITY SIZES

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

53

COHAB.

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

55

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

FORM DEVELOPMENT

56

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

57

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

URBAN GRAIN PLAN 1/5000

58

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

59

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

URBAN GRAIN PLAN 1/1000

60

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

61

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

SITE PLAN 1/500

62

G

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

63

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

Formation of Public Spaces

Accessibility

Just as single units are located through the formation of in-between spaces, public spaces are formed by the aggregation of the buildings.

Opening the gaps between the masses allowed access to the public square for users from three different streets. Thus, both accessibility and visibility of the square were being improved. This was supported by the public spaces on the ground floor.

First, the masses were placed to form a public square in between. Afterwards, this square was strengthened by the formation of the mass, and smaller squares and spaces were also created on the street side.

64

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

65

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

V ERTICAL CIRCUL ATION L IVING UNITS CO SPACE G REEN SPACE/TERRACE CO WORKING/LIBRARY M ARKET HALL

1

.FLOOR

CO MMUNIT Y CENTER B OOKSTORE S HED TOOL/SWAP STATION C AFE M AKER SPACE R ETAIL STORE 66

G

ROUND FLOOR

2

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

3

4

5

6

67

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION A

GROUND FLOOR

Bookstore

Storage

±0.00 ±0.00

Maker Space

Storage

±0.00 ±0.00

B

B

±0.00

±0.00

Library & Co-Working

±0.00

Office/Info

Comunity Center Event Space

±0.00

Storage

±0.00

WC

Cafe WC

Storage WC

±0.00

Tool Shed Swap Station

±0.00

C

C

±0.00

Mini Market Hall

Bakery / Deli

±0.00

±0.00

Greengrocery ±0.00

±0.00

Retail

±0.00

A

68

G

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

69

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION A

1.FLOOR

Meeting Room

Meeting Room

St

+3.85

Printing +3.85

B

B ±0.00

Library & Co-Working ±0.00

+3.85 +3.85

±0.00

+3.85

Quiet Room

Quiet Room WC

+3.85

C

C

±0.00

±0.00 +3.85

+3.85 +3.85

±0.00

±0.00 +3.85

A

70

G

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

71

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION A

2.FLOOR

+7.00

+7.00 +7.00 +7.00

B

B ±0.00

+7.00

+7.00

+7.00

C

C

±0.00

±0.00 +7.00

+7.00

A

72

+7.00

G

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

73

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION A

3.FLOOR

+7.00

+10.15

+10.15

+10.15 +10.15

B

B ±0.00 +10.15 ±0.00

+10.15 +10.15

+10.15

C

C ±0.00

±0.00 +10.15

+10.15

A

74

+10.15

G

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

75

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION A

4.FLOOR

+7.00

+13.30

+13.30

+13.30

+10.15 +13.30

B

B ±0.00

±0.00

+13.30

+13.30

+13.30

C

C

±0.00

±0.00 +13.30

+13.30

A

76

+13.30

4

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

77

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION A

5.FLOOR

+13.30 +16.45 +13.30

+16.45

+16.45

B

B ±0.00

Working

Courtyard +16.45

Working

+16.45

Studio Terrace

St

Working

+13.30 +16.45

C

C

+16.45

±0.00

±0.00 +16.45

+16.45

+16.45

Studio

A

78

5

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

79

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION A

6.FLOOR

B

B

+16.45

C

C +19.60

±0.00

+19.60

+19.60

+19.60 +19.60

Working

Studio

A

80

6

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

81

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

E L E V AT I O N S O U T H

82

SECTION AA

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

83

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

E L E V AT I O N W E S T

84

SECTION BB

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

85

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

E L E V AT I O N E A S T

86

SECTION CC

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

87

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

SECTION PERSPECTIVE

88

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

89

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

90

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

91

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

D E TA I L 1 1 / 1 0 zinc sheet 60 x 220

Green Roof Construction 1. vegetation 2. extensive substrate 3. filter fleece 4. drainage and storage board 5. protection fleece 6. waterproofing membrane 7. pressure resistant sloping insulation 8. waterproofing membrane 9. lignatur load-bearing board with thermal insulation 240mm

60 x 150 Wall Construction 396mm 1. wood cladding 22mm 2. horizontal battens 24x40mm 3. vertical counter battens 40x24mm 4. wood fibre board 40mm 5. mineral wool insulation 150mm 6. waterproofing membrane 7. horizontal battens 24x40mm 8. vertical counter battens 40x24mm 9. wood cladding 22mm

insulation 60mm

Wood Beam 250 x 150mm

ventilation profile / insect protection

triple insulating glazing

92

wood frame head 180 x 30 wood window frame 70 x 80mm

D E TA I L 2 1 / 1 0 triple insulating glazing

wood window frame 70 x 80mm wood frame sill 180 x 30 zinc windowsill

Wall Construction 356mm 1. wood cladding 22mm 2. horizontal battens 24x40mm 3. vertical counter battens 40x24mm 4. wood fibre board 40mm 5. mineral wool insulation 150mm 6. OSB board as vapor barrier 20mm 7. horizontal battens 24x40mm

Floor Construction 1. wood flooring 2. adhesive 3. screed with underfloor heating 60mm 4. polyethylene film 5. footstep sound insulation 80mm 6. separating film 7. lignatur load-bearing board with sound insulation 200mm

insulation 60mm Plaster 20mm insulation 100mm concrete beam 250 x 300 mm

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

93

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

D E TA I L 1 1 / 5 Wall Construction 396mm 1. wood cladding 22mm 2. horizontal battens 24x40mm 3. vertical counter battens 40x24mm 4. wood fibre board 40mm 5. mineral wool insulation 150mm 6. waterproofing membrane 7. horizontal battens 24x40mm 8. vertical counter battens 40x24mm 9. wood cladding 22mm

vegetation fixing bar drainage filler

Wood 60x240mm

insulation 60mm

wind and rain proofing bonding vapor barrier bonding

ventilation profile / insect protection

triple insulating glazing 94

wood frame head 180 x 30 wood window frame 70 x 80mm

Green Roof Construction 1. vegetation 2. extensive substrate 3. filter fleece 4. drainage and storage board 5. protection fleece 6. waterproofing membrane 7. pressure resistant sloping insulation 8. waterproofing membrane 9. lignatur load-bearing board with thermal insulation 240mm

D E TA I L 2 1 / 5

triple insulating glazing wood window frame 70 x 80mm

drip gap

wind and rain proofing bonding zinc windowsill

Wall Construction 356mm 1. wood cladding 22mm 2. horizontal battens 24x40mm 3. vertical counter battens 40x24mm 4. wood fibre board 40mm 5. mineral wool insulation 150mm 6. OSB board as vapor barrier 20mm 7. horizontal battens 24x40mm

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

vapor barrier bonding

wood frame sill 180 x 30

Floor Construction 1. wood flooring 2. adhesive 3. screed with underfloor heating 60mm 4. polyethylene film 5. footstep sound insulation 80mm 6. separating film 7. lignatur load-bearing board with sound insulation 200mm

95

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

G

96

G

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

97

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

5

98

5

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

99

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

G

100

G

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

101

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Issue / Pandemic and Psychology

Approach

- Ünal Erdem Elli, Pandemic and its Psychological Effects, Gelisim University, 2020

SCHUMACHER QUARTIER DIE CHARTA Für eine zukunftsweisende Quartiersentwicklung, Tegel Projekt GmbH, Oktober 2019

- Esra Asici, Impact of the pandemic on mental health, TYB Academy Journal of Language, Literature and Social Sciences, 2020

Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS | Laufende Raumbeobachtung des BBSR, GeoBasisDE / BKG 2019

- Paula Cocozza, Has a year of living with Covid-19 rewired our brains?, The Guardian International, Dec 2020

Anton & irene + SPACE10, ONE SHARED HOUSE 2030

- Cuiyan Wang et al., “Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors During the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the General Population inChina”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020 - Yeen Huang and Ning Zhao, “Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Symptoms and Sleep Quality During COVID-19 Epidemic in China: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey”, medRxiv, Preprint version, 2020 - Mark Shevlin et al., “Anxiety, Depression, Traumatic Stress, and COVID-19 Related Anxiety in the UK General Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic”, Cambridge University Press, 2020 Intro Mollie Claypool, Space10; The Digital in Architecture: Then, Now and in the Future Location Stadtumbau SÜDKREUZ; Informationsveranstaltung zum Entwicklungsstand in der Schöneberger Linse, 2018 ZERA berlin; Insel Tour, Historische Informationen zu einem Stadtraum, 2008 Karl Baedecker; Mittel- und Norddeutschland; Handbuch für Reisende; Leipzig 1885.

Sustainability - Michael Y Mak and Clinton J Peacock, Social Sustainability: A Comparison of Case Studies in UK, USA and Australia, School of Architecture and Built Environment, The University of Newcastle, 2011 - Zahra Kefayati and Hamed Moztarzadeh, Developing Effective Social Sustainability Indicators In Architecture, Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci., 2015 - Mario Polese and Richard Stren, The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change, University of Toronto Press 2000 - Isabella M. Lami and Beatrice Mecca, Assessing Social Sustainability for Achieving Sustainable Architecture, Politecnico di Torino, 2021 - Pardis Helmy, City + Community : Social Sustainability, Rethinking the Future, https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/city-and-architecture/a2510city-community-social-sustainability/ - Ken Beattie, Sustainable Architecture and Simulation Modelling, Dublin Institute of Technology, 2013 - Doerr Architecture, Definition of Sustainability and the Impacts of Buildings, http://doerr.org/services/sustainability/ - What is Biodiversity, United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre - Andreea Cutieru, Biodiversity in Urban Environments, Archdaily Articles, 2022 - Katerina Eklova, Sustainability of Buildings: Environmental, Economic and Social Pillars, Czech Technical University in Prague, 2020

Masterarbeit, Berliner Hochschule für Technik Cantug Özcan ‑ Eralp Orkun Cihan

103

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

The home plays an increasingly diverse role in our lives with the pandemic and digitalization.

In this period when the boundaries of Home-Work-Social Environment are starting to disappear, we, as users and architects, have to accept that the current housing architecture is insufficient in this regard. New needs and uses gave us new space needs. The gradual increase in the world population, the overpopulation of the cities and the resulting housing problem, the affordability of our home becomes a challenge for architects at the point of meeting these needs. All these new needs; It has emerged that the new housing areas to be produced should be produced with affordable, compact, flexible, easily accessible, sustainable and ecological solutions.

The aim of the study is to raise awareness about the changing spatial usage priorities of home, the spatial problems that arise at different scales, and to create new design principles for the future of housing design. The housing project that will be designed at the end of this research should reflect the new functionality of the future home and incorporate the relationship between private, public and in-between spaces.

Berliner Hochschule für Technik Berlin Fachbereich IV Architektur und Gebäudetechnik Betreuer: Dipl.-Ing. Henning von Wedemeyer Gutachter: M.A. Architekt Luis B. Mola Vorgelegt von Cantug Özcan & Eralp Orkun Cihan

COHAB. ROTE INSEL COHABITATION

104