Toward A Collective Architecture

TOWARD A COLLECTIVE ARCHITECTURE.

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE THESIS JON LUND

Toward A Collective Architecture

by Jon Lund

This thesis was submitted to the graduate school of the University of Cincinnati in March 2017 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture in the School of Architecture & Interior Design in the College of Design Architecture Art & Planning.

Its completion was overseen by the committee: Udo Greinacher, M. Arch Michael McInturf, M. Arch

Thanks to my parents for their encouragement, guidance, and support throughout architecture school.

Special thanks to my wife and best friend Abigail, for supporting me and giving me the chance to dream.

3

Toward A Collective Architecture

Gallery Exhibition

5

Toward A Collective Architecture

Gallery Exhibition

7

Toward A Collective Architecture

Gallery Exhibition

9

Toward A Collective Architecture

Gallery Exhibition

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction

15

Concepts of Collectivism

19

Co-living

35

Co-working

45

Methodology

53

Site

63

Project

91

Conclusion

117

References

121

13

Toward A Collective Architecture

Chapter Title

INTRODUCTION

15

Toward A Collective Architecture

Abstract

This thesis explores a relationship between people and

the spaces they share. It studies both living and working, and the accidental interactions that may occur from shared space. It is guided by concepts laid out by Charles Taylor, which questions the overestimation of individualism in the contemporary American culture.

It is a response to a philosophically driven notion that humans have a need to exist in relationship to each other. Subsequently, it responds to the secondary outcomes of this notion, namely the economic viability of a shared economy in the San Francisco Bay Area. Ultimately this thesis will lead to a design of a multi-use building that focuses on the two aforementioned items: living and working. These will translate into architecture as co-housing and co-working.

Because words like “community” are so wildly variant in their

intended meaning, I will lay out a series of definitions so as not to confuse the reader.

•

Collective: A group of similarly minded people.

•

Community: A group of people who know and fellowship with each other.

•

Co-housing: An intentional community group living in individual units with shared spaces.

•

Co-working: A collective centered on work.

17

Toward A Collective Architecture

Chapter Title

CONCEPTS OF COLLECTIVISM

19

Toward A Collective Architecture

Fig. 1. Charles Taylor.

Concepts of Collectivism

In The Ethics of Authenticity, Charles Taylor introduces what he calls the “three malaises of modernism.”1 These are features of contemporary culture that people feel worried about. Individualism, instrumental reason, and passivity—that leads to “soft” despotism2— mark the three sources of worry, each propelling the next.

These worries are also perpetuated by a system of thinking:

an ethic that Taylor says is peculiar to the modern culture. That is, the source of authenticity comes from within the individual. This grew out of the contemplations of individualism by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who concluded that a person is free when they decide for themselves what concerns them, rather than be shaped by external influence. This means that being in touch with the inner self is of great importance in modernity, because it provides meaning. Taylor cites Johann Gottfried Herder as the main articulator of individuals having their own measure: doing what is right for me.3

Taylor’s critique, then, is that the rise of individualism has

simultaneously undercut a higher sense of purpose for the individual.

It seems that the loss of purpose was linked to the fact that “people lost the broader vision because they focused on their individual lives.”4 Taylor questions the price we have paid for individual freedoms, suggesting that there is a deeper meaning found in certain cohesions.

To be cohesive, there will undoubtedly be a series of restrictions so that the operation may be uniform.

Instrumental rationality, the second malaise, is a means-end

method of reasoning. It is a purely logical expression that is devoid of empathy. In essence this is the underlying anxiety of artificial intelligence takeover supposed by science fiction. Taylor describes this as a condition of modern efficiency, and connects it to his critique on 1. Charles Taylor. The Ethics of Authenticity, p. 1.

2. Taylor cites French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, who first used the term “soft” despotism. He distinguishes this from conventional tyranny, which is often characterized by an obvious oppression or singular character. The “soft” despotism is a form of tyranny that pacifies its citizenry who either do not realize or do not care that they are powerless pawns. It seems that it is more likely referring to the apathetic citizen, who knows but does not care that he is dominated by such a regime.

3. Ibid, p. 29.

4. Ibid, p. 4.

21

Toward A Collective Architecture

the narrowing and flattening caused by individualism. Furthermore, it is made possible through modernity’s removal of the old order, which governed thought through morality. While independence from the degree of totality in which this old order was practiced, there were also consequences. Taylor elaborates on this: “In one way this change has been liberating. But there is also a widespread unease that instrumental reason not only has enlarged its scope but also threatens to take over our lives. The fear is that things that ought to be determined by other criteria will be decided in terms of efficiency or ‘cost-benefit’ analysis, that the independent ends that ought to be guiding our lives will be eclipsed by the demand to maximize output.”5

The third source of worry is political. It is the consequence of

individualism and instrumental reason in political life. The industrialtechnological society has institutions and structures that favor instrumental rationality. This forces societies and individuals to support actions that we would never do in serious moral deliberation. Taylor notes that it is precisely for this reason that we have “great difficulties in tackling even vital threats to our lives from environmental disasters.”6 The compounding ramifications are that it continues to breed apathy within individuals, who are more concerned with their independent goals anyway. The concern, then, is that modern individualism would produce a society in which people would eventually turn off; they would lose their interest—their sense of commitment to public life.

Taylor’s conclusion about individualism is that its inherent

freedoms peak on a bell curve, after which they are ever more restricted by forces of “soft” despotism. It will not be the oppressive regimes like 5. Ibid, p. 5.

6. Ibid, p. 9.

Concepts of Collectivism

the old days, but government will be mild and paternalistic. The antidote would be participation, but this requires a social cohesion.

While Taylor’s critique brings up a woeful discourse of the

downfall of the individual in society, the opposite point could be articulated as well. For the sake of argument, I will articulate the extreme view. If the social cohesion was not dominated by a regulatory force, but rather by an overwhelming respect, or at least tolerance, for all other individuals, then a deeply diverse society could flourish. Everyone is afforded the same right and range of expression. This will allow the individual to be so distinctively unique as to display the truest image of their self-reflection. In this the individual will achieve their highest purpose: to be who they were meant to be (or to do what they want).

A new danger then arises for the individual. That danger can be chiefly articulated as the influence of others on the expressions of the individual. Such imposition could be rules and regulations that define limits on self-expression. In the extreme scenario, the individual will be forced to flee this danger or suffer losing meaning in their lives.

The vision of dense diversity will instead be scattered. In this reality, individuals will likely avoid each other. While this may seem ideal to a select few misanthropes, the greater collective of humanity will suffer this diaspora. It seems that not only does the collective hold a philosophical logic, but there is also a scientific articulation of the collective that verifies its importance to the human species: “At present, it seems fair to conclude that human beings are fundamentally and pervasively motivated by a need to belong, that is, by a strong desire to form and maintain enduring interpersonal attachments. People seek frequent, affectively positive interactions within the context of long-term, caring relationships.”7 7. Roy F. Baumeister and Mark R. Leary. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117.3, p. 522.

23

Toward A Collective Architecture

Concepts of Collectivism

Therefore, if the ethic of authenticity in the contemporary culture

is about self-derived originality, it is also distancing itself from others. It decontextualizes itself, resulting in a meaning that is only significant to the individual. The opposing ethic is deeply tied to the past order, and seeks to reconnect to the enchantment of the pre-modern world, which is reliant on nostalgic assertions rather than true understanding. Taylor refutes the entire argument between the two sides because it does not catalyze change but only continues to polarize the issue. The solution that he proposes continues to uphold the individual. It takes a different approach, however. It does not seek to find meaning from within, thereby dislocating the individual from context, but rather authenticates individuals within the context of other individuals. A person finds their identity not in who they project on themselves, but rather identify in relation to family, friends, or other influential people, in relation to objects and geographical locations, all reflecting experiences derived from factors external to the individual. People find deeper purpose in relation to people.

Opposite. Fig. 2. Dutch Parliament Extension, OMA, 1978. The proposal for the extension of parliament aimed to create a contemporary building within a context of historic buildings, allowing the new building to be incorporated by the existing fabric. This neither abandons the old nor over-emphasizes it, but uses it as an ingredient to tell a deeper story about governance and power.

25

Toward A Collective Architecture

(TBD)

Concepts of Collectivism

The Hearth

Taylor’s idea of people relating to each other is only novel in the

light of rampant individualism. Before individualism was conceptualized, people functioned collectively. It seems this previous collective was taken for granted and understood in terms of a caste system. This created social hierarchies—the hierarchies which modernism is responsible for flattening—that evolved to create tribal systems.8 After its discovery, people would congregate around fires for heat and cooking.

This began as a method of survival but soon became a mainstay of culture, as stories were told and conversations held around the fire.

As crop cultivation was invented, so too were permanent dwellings.

For warmth, fires were also moved into the dwellings, and with it all the attached cultural sentiments.

The manifestation of this in architecture became an element

called the hearth. The hearth has been considered the most significant element of a home, although its meaning is arguably somewhat lost on us now. Edward Denison and Guang Yu Ren studied the history of the housing types in England.9 Their study begins with pre-historic peoples who lived together in cellular settlements. They give an example at Skara Brae, which shows that homes were partly in ground stone structures that were interconnected by doorways. In these dwellings we see the first instance of the hearth. Here it is both physically and symbolically in the center. It provided light, warmth, means of cooking, and spirituality.

With the advent of the Iron Age and new technologies, the

dwellings changed. As seen in the Orkney Islands around 500 BC, 8. This is far more complex than I have made it seem. The nuclear family as we understand it today is largely a modern invention, although debuting at its earliest with the invention of the suburb. If we were to look at a reverse timeline, before the nuclear family was a patriarchal family with a man and woman in a monogamous relationship. Monogamy was introduced to Europeans in the medieval period as Christianity spread and came to dominate the moral governance of societies across Europe. Prior to this, families were large patriarchal collectives, with many wives and children. This collective formation is responsible for the creation of tribes, which eventually joined each other and formed nations. This concept of family is perhaps the oldest and most common in the ancient world, and still prevails in some places in the world even today.

9. Edward Denison, and Guang Ren Yu. The Life of the British Home: An Architectural History, p. 13.

Opposite. Fig. 3. Fireplace for Children, Trondheim, Norway.

27

Toward A Collective Architecture

Fig. 4. Briton roundhouse, ca. 500 BC.

Fig. 5. Roman townhome, ca. 80 AD.

Concepts of Collectivism

dwellings became individual disconnected roundhouses.10 These were up to 20 meters in diameter and inhabited by many people. Again the plan of the house had a central hearth, which also offered a communal function, while the periphery was reserved for sleeping.

The next paradigm shift in England came with the invasion

of the Romans in 43 AD. As opposed to the Briton home, the Roman townhome was relentlessly rectilinear and urbanized. This is because the Romans equated civilization with urbanization. Another change that the Romans brought with their housing type was that is was not shared with livestock, as a Briton roundhouse may have been, but rather it shared space with the machines of the trade of the person who dwelt there.11 Additionally the wealthier Romans started to create villas in the countryside, a first suggestion of suburban dwelling in England.

It seems the greatest difference was in the purpose of the home. The hearth is not a central concept in the Roman typology (likely because it was developed in a warm climate) but rather an atrium or courtyard – which was for entertaining. In contrast the Briton hearth functioned as a center for cooking, eating, and telling stories.

The next great influence on English housing also came from

invaders. These were Anglo-Saxons from mainland Europe, and later Vikings. These people brought a new typology: the hall. This was a gathering place for work, business, and entertainment. It, like early Briton dwellings, was characterized by a central hearth, but was boxier in plan.12 While the Anglo-Saxon society was very stratified, an early concept of egalitarianism was common among the Viking society. This allowed for all the Vikings to gather together in the hall for merriment.

Over time in the medieval period these halls developed into castles, largely for strategic purposes, and the social class structure became extremely stratified.

10. Ibid, p. 16.

11. Ibid, p. 22.

12. Ibid, p. 24.

29

Toward A Collective Architecture

Fig. 6. Hall-parlor home, ca. 1650.

Fig. 7. Open plan, 1920. Note that the hearth has dissolved and that most of the living room is dedicated toward entertaining, establishing itself as the modern evolution of the hall.

Concepts of Collectivism

Another shift occurred largely due the to rise of the merchant

class and a long-standing regional peace. It was no longer necessary to upkeep and maintain castles with large garrisons, so the hall came back in vogue, and now the merchants began to create halls in the 15th century. Because the merchant class increasingly valued private space, houses were constructed with more rooms that served specific purposes.13 It is said that with the increase of privacy, hospitality declined.

What changed the housing typology of the merchant class was

eventually the open-plan in modernism. This deconstructed the tradition in which people lived, and provided a way forward for a new way of flexible living. This is a theme current today as well. The open plan allows for multiple functions that appeared in distinct chambers within the merchant class house.

Since the invention of central heating, the fireplace was no

longer essential, and hearth would soon have to be redefined. Although by this time, the process of cooking and the social gathering of the hearth had already been compartmentalized, as seen in the hallparlor homes of colonial North America. Moreover, since construction technology allowed for open floor plans in the modern age, the distinctive elements of the house began to blur. Thereby, the redefinition of the hearth would logically be subject to this. Drawing from its historical notions, the hearth should be a place of social exchange, with possibilities of including cooking.

It is interesting to note that a there is a strong pull toward the

individual, and their empowerment, and ironically the hostility that it generates. The correlation between privacy and decline of hospitality is deeply worth considering as an artifact of culture that we may have lost.

13. Ibid, p. 40.

31

Toward A Collective Architecture

Indeed hospitality is existent within culture, but—in contrast to

earlier cultures—is much flatter, and considerably surface-level. This could be linked to the empowerment of individualism, and illustrates Taylor’s points toward the disengagement of individuals with the social sphere. The obvious danger is that the individual becomes more separated, private, and secluded. With understanding that there is a correlation between privacy and hospitality, it could be said that this trajectory will produce greater hostility between people.

Where individualism is most greatly prized the danger of

hostility is already rather visible. Government policies now promote hostility in the name of self-preservation, by closing borders to Syrian refugees,14 and restricting travel for targeted people groups. It is also apparent in institutional ideologies, namely in the school choice voucher proposition that empowers the individual rights of parents. This results in homogenized schools that systematically disenfranchise students from lower income backgrounds. While these examples are institutional, the mentality is also apparent among the citizenry. Large protests have been organized internationally to shout down these abrupt and seemingly backwards mindsets. In each scenario, hostility is clearly represented.

Consider, then, if the conditions of society upheld the cohesion

of individuals, rather than the singular individual. If the increase of privacy caused the decrease of hospitality, then perhaps the inverse is true as well. If privatization decreases then hospitality can increase.

There seems to be a common value associated with the shared, to some extent. The shared, being opposite of the private, has properties that make it appealing to certain groups of people. The more universal the shared object is, the less particular and the more flexible it is. The city square can be conceived of as such a place, because it belongs to

14. Nick Squires. “Syrian Refugee Shot by Slovakian Border Guards.” The Telegraph.

Concepts of Collectivism

both citizens and strangers.

This represents an example of the larger scale of the shared. To

some degree, the scales of shared space must come down to certain social spheres. An individual is not at home in the city square, even if it is comfortable and familiar, because it does not offer repose and defensibility. The individual scale may be thought of as an element of the house, such as a bedroom. This is the retreat of the individual, but it connects to a larger scale that shares spaces with the other rooms in the house. Each scale then connects to a larger scale. This is a straightforward understanding, which is perhaps already the common practice, but the missing ingredient then is the mixing of scales. In mixing scales the linear element15 is removed. This grants opportunity for new ways to think about shared and private spaces.

15. This linear element refers to the chain of scales of shared spaces that incrementally increase. If the bedroom is for the individual, and connects to a living room, which connects to an entry, which connects to a street etc., then the scales of shared spaces increase in size and shares.

33

Toward A Collective Architecture

Chapter Title

CO-LIVING

35

Toward A Collective Architecture

Cohousing in Europe

Co-living

Co-housing as it is understood now is a postmodern concept

that started in Denmark in the 1960s.16 It became popular in the 1980s in Germany, but this began with marginal groups such as the homosexual community in Berlin.17 While never becoming mainstream, it rose in popularity during the 1990s. In 2000, due a to poor economy, Berlin ended policies that funded housing. Co-housing began to reemerge around 2010, because homeownership was not affordable to the lower-mid income population. Some families no longer had a desire to rent, but did not want to leave their communities, so they organized as a building-group. Now there are national and regional policies that subsidize land sales to such groups, although there is criticism that municipalities could do more. Co-housing is seen to be a positive thing, giving people more ownership of their community and, because of its intentional internal community, people became generally happier as a result.

The question of “what a makes a home a home” has been

conceptualized to try to generate a metric for its definition. A home is a dwelling, and as such must be consistent with the elements of a dwelling. Additionally the home speaks to the emotive being and is a caretaker of the dweller, suggesting the connection between the home and individual must be profound. It seems then the elements of a home are twofold; one corresponds to its makeup as a dwelling, and the other corresponds with the dweller. Therefore, it can be categorized thus: the objects of necessity and the objects of identity.

The objects of necessity can largely exist independently of the

objects of identity. These objects include the container, in which all the other objects are bound. In built form this is the walls, floors, and roof. It contains both the other elements and provides security and protection.

The way through the container is the second object, which is the 16. Lidewij Tummers. “The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of cohousing research.” URBAN STUDIES, p. 2023.

17. Frances Anderton. “Berlin’s R50 Baugruppe Is a Model of Living Affordably, Collectively.” Design Architecture.

37

Toward A Collective Architecture

(TBD)

Co-living

threshold. This passage provides means of entry and egress as well as security and control. The third object is the hearth. This has historically been the most significant location that enabled survival and fostered culture. In the contemporary setting this would be a combined kitchen and living space. The hearth is the primary public space of the home.

On the other hand, in the contemporary home there are also private spaces. The first is the bedroom and the second is the bathroom.

Finally, in the bedroom there is storage.

The objects of identity are far more personal to the individual,

and are therefore harder to quantify. Décor, paint, layout, books, and location may all be objects of identity, however it would an impossible task to quantify this. Therefore it is better to suggest guidelines that allow for flexibility for these objects. The notion of open building— creating an open plan and allowing users to add walls over time— strongly empowers individuals to create highly personalized spaces. In general an open floor plan allows high levels of flexibility and should be considered as a driver for the objects of identity.

Therefore we can conclude that a home is a concept that

is defined by a quantitative and a qualitative metric: the objects of necessity and the objects of identity, respectively. The objects of necessity comprise the minimum elements of the built form. It includes the container, threshold, hearth, bed, and bathroom. Although the objects of identity are defined by the individual, design strategies, like open building, can be implemented to enable personalization of the home.

Despite the changing trends of technology, lifestyles, and

culture, the prevailing human nature has remained the same. Humans must eat to survive, but have always done this as a social ritual. Food and drink are at the center of most great conversations. This began Opposite. Fig. 8. The Narkomfin. This visualization reimagines the Narkomfin in use, which was abandoned during Stalin’s regime. The Narkomfin was designed in alignment with ideals of early communism and efficiency, with a focus on the communal.

39

Toward A Collective Architecture

Co-living

as a mode of survival but has long since been adopted as a cultural normality. It is seen across all cultures, and is manifested most often in cuisine. While the modes of culture have changed, the creation of delicious foods is a natural trait of people.

Therefore the central collector for the co-housers is catalyzed by

food. A central and shared kitchen provides a hearth. The kitchen has the capacity to serve the entire community, but also offers an informal common space.

Take the following as an example. The scene opens with a

young couple and their new baby. They had previously worked in San Francisco, living in a small loft apartment. Although their rent was expensive, they enjoyed living in the urban scene. He is a journalist, and she is a software engineer. Despite a high rent they were able to put away money and begin a family; however they realized the need to move out of their loft in search of something more advantageous for their new family. Nevertheless, they did not want to resign themselves to the American dream and move into the suburbs, because they had grown accustomed to the ways of urban life. They looked toward Oakland, knowing that was both nearby and maintained the urban appeal, while offering more competitive housing. In their hunt for a place to live, they stumbled across a small self-organized group of similar young families who were pooling resources to create a co-housing development.

Thus the story of co-housers began from a combined point

of need and desire. The need to live in housing that was suitable for young families and a desire to remain connected to the city. As this social group formed, the decision was made to allow for common areas to accommodate the entire group to encourage the social cohesion.

Although this decision also came at the cost of some space within the private dwellings, the decision was democratic and nearly unanimous,

Opposite. Fig. 9. R-50 Co-housing, Berlin, Germany.

The scenario in the text is derived from the stories of the residents of R-50.

41

Toward A Collective Architecture

(TBD)

Co-living

resulting in the departure of one family. Despite the small amount of drama, the social cohesion was strengthening and a desire between the remaining families to create strong intentional bonds with each other flowed rather naturally with discussions about the shared spaces and what they could be.

Opposite. Fig. 10. Swan’s Market Co-housing, Oakland, California..

43

Toward A Collective Architecture

Chapter Title

CO-WORKING

45

Toward A Collective Architecture

Co-working

Co-working was born from complex situations facing

knowledge workers in 1990s. Around this time IT jobs were starting to get outsourced,18 and American and European professionals moved towards freelance work. Much of this work was based from home offices, which quickly proved to be insufficient. It seems there was a productive and creative atmosphere for satisfying work. Cowork emerged as a provider of this type of atmosphere, but also has become an intellectual incubator and social collector. In the late 2000s, co-working gained a lot of traction, especially in concert with the US recession. Brad Neuberg is described as the father of co-working in San Francisco, because of his opening a co-work space (and using that particular description) for the sake of having community and collaboration to help his own freelance practice, although C-Base in Berlin is considered the first hacker space (a “pre-stage” of co-work).19

The existing models of co-work conform to five major criteria

and their definitions: •

Openness—open-mindedness and respect for others.

•

Collaboration—willingness to share and work together.

•

Community—the social bond that motivates collaboration.

•

Sustainability—economic and ecological (shared space and amenities, which create less expensive and less wasteful solutions), and social (equal opportunity).

•

Accessibility—affordable to everyone (an overlap of the economic and social sustainability) and generally served by public transportation.20

These are terms that convey what our current culture might put

at the pinnacle of virtues, but these terms are also corporate buzzwords that seem to gain and lose effect equally as fast. Co-work is a collective, and this collective shares in common values. The definitions of the five 18. Stefan Rief and Klaus-Peter Stiefel. “Harnessing the Potential of Coworking,” p. 4.

19. Ibid, p. 5.

20. Ibid, p. 11.

Opposite. Fig. 11. Central Parade, London.

47

Toward A Collective Architecture

Co-working

virtues must be defined through the lens of the collective, to the end that they may provide tangible paths of social cohesion. Additionally an infrastructure must be implemented to support these virtues.

The physical space the co-working collective can inhabit is fluid

due to the dynamic possibilities of different objectives. This indicates a need for a specific direction. This collective draws on inspiration of the creative culture of the San Francisco Bay Area, and focuses on the creative fields. While a lot of co-working spaces do exists in the Bay Area, the market is largely limited for creatives. There is a lack of studio and maker space, which this specific co-working will emphasize.

Co-working follows a system of an opt-in/opt-out tiered

subscription. This allows individuals to access what they need while paying a basic fee, but also grants additional access and more shared amenities to premium members. Guided by the virtue of accessibility, the tiered system allows the basic level co-workers access to officestandard basics (desk, software access, printing, etc.), while providing digital fabrication machinery to other members.

The concern in a hierarchical system would be the cohesion of

collective. Physical separation between basic and premium members may fracture the greater cohesion by creating two microclimates.

Therefore, a de-emphasis should be placed on price and value, and a stronger emphasis on the directorial virtues of openness and community. This emphatic shift is intended cause the delineation between working and living to blur.

The phrase “it was business, not personal,” is key to

understanding why it is important to blur this line. The phrase leverages instrumental rationality while simultaneously making us feel like its acceptable because “it’s not personal.” To combat instrumental rationality, openness and community address the whole person as

Opposite. Fig. 12. WeWork pricing schemes.

49

Toward A Collective Architecture

Co-working

opposed to compartmentalizing. It is a stronger and more personal interaction between individuals, and therefore can unite the collective.

This would impose some of the elements of living on the physical space. The hearth—as a locus for community—is the most prominent of these spaces. The hearth here is not limited to a dining and life-on-life experience, but also involves intellectual stimulation. Therefore, a series of hearths could integrate into the overall co-working structure.

Opposite. Fig. 13. WeWork Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, California.

51

Toward A Collective Architecture

Chapter Title

METHODOLOGY

53

Toward A Collective Architecture

Methodology

Methodology

The typology is defined as a co-living and co-working space,

derived from the concepts of collectivism, and applied to the avenues of living and working. The architectural implications often treat the different program by distinguished degrees of separation. The process of blurring this distinction allowed for a deeper exploration of the collective, and how it manifests in architecture. The guiding principles sought to produce a collective at various scales.

By using simple geometries and human-scale massing, the user

is guided into a series of shared spaces. Externally the facade seems familiar, but does not read determinately living or working, suggesting the blurring of the programmatic elements. Internally the living program is raised above the working, but spatially open to create a dialogic between what is shared and private.

55

Toward A Collective Architecture

Fig. 14. Newhall Be, Essex, UK

Fig. 15. Donnybrook Quarter, London, UK

Methodology

Module

The design of collective housing has been the subject of many

architectural investigations of the years. Many contemporary works feature a prominent modular strategy that philosophically promotes unity. There is a utility to modular design as well, because it becomes an efficient method of construction.

The articulation of the module in Newhall Be is very distinct,

yet lends itself strongly to the overall composition of the development.

It is located in the London suburb of Newhall, which contains several architecturally noteworthy developments. Newhall Be is a high-density suburban development, so the repeated row house functions to create an urban presence. The blackened siding is tied to the materiality of traditional barns in the region,22 which causes the faces of the row houses to appear uniform. In one sense, this takes away the individual expression of each house, however, the connection to the region has proven to be a stronger driver.

The module then acts threefold: as a unifier, construction

methodology, and an aesthetic. These notions provide an architectural framework for the collective, in which the elements of the home can be overlaid.

22. “Newhall South Chase / Alison Brooks Architects.� ArchDaily.

57

Toward A Collective Architecture

Fig. 16. Justus Van Effen Complex, Rotterdam, NL.

Methodology

Elevated Street

The street is the traditional point of contact for a person with a

building. This normally contains high levels of activity and is therefore typically preferred for retail or commercial programs. With a new interest in mixed-use development, form-based code, and urban density; most living units are lofted above the street level. The typical form of access is an internally loaded circulation, which contains corridors that undermine the concept of the front door. Since the threshold is an important element of the home, it is pertinent to convey this. Therefore an elevated street is at the same plane as the living units. The result is that the elevated plane will inherit many of the detail qualities of the ground level, including a reintroduction of the front door, which has arguably only become a symbol.

The elevated street is the driving concept in the Justus Van

Effen Complex, in Rotterdam.23 The building massing is extruded around the perimeter of the urban block, with internal bars that define internal courtyard spaces. A two-story apartment stacked on another two-story apartment defines the massing. The upper level apartments are accessed by the elevated street, and contain the same architectural details of the entry as the ground level does.

23. Aurora Fernรกndez Per, Javier Mozas, and Alex Ollero S. 10 Stories of Collective Housing: Graphical Analysis of Inspiring Masterpieces, p. 19.

59

Toward A Collective Architecture

Methodology

Materials

Within the module, the selection of materials arose from the

exploration of public and private, toward the theory that increased privacy decreases hospitality. It is important that a simple material palette convey these notions. A series of contrasting elements would serve to highlight peculiar qualities.

A white corrugated metal ties directly to the industrial heritage,

and borrows the color from the cranes at the Port of Oakland. It both serves as a nod to its context, while also creating a uniform exterior quality to suggest that each unit is similar. The uniform also illustrates the cohesiveness of the collective.

In contrast to the white metal, a warm wood is exposed on

inside faces of wall in exterior conditions, and is visible through the threshold. The intent is to create a visually inviting point of entry at the threshold. At the same time, the threshold peels away the metal to reveal the warm inner courtyard.

Inside the enclosure, a light coloration is used to create the

feeling of a larger space, and demonstrates a shared space. A chevron wood pattern on the floor also demonstrates a certain vibrancy that can be found in the shared space. The private spaces use a dark gray felt to signify a certain desired solace, and to delineate between what is shared and what is not. The acoustics of the softer material is also intended to dampen external sound, and provide a most retreated experience. Juxtaposed, the two spaces could be thought of as extroverted and introverted spaces, respectively.

61

Toward A Collective Architecture

Chapter Title

SITE

63

Toward A Collective Architecture

SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco Bay Area

Site

OAKLAND

ALAMEDA

65

Toward A Collective Architecture

(TBD)

PORT OF OAKLAND

Oakland, California

Site

JA

CK

LO

ND

ON

SQ

UA

RE

DIS

TR

ICT

67

Toward A Collective Architecture

Jack London Square District

Site

JACK LONDON SQUARE

SITE

69

Toward A Collective Architecture

Top, left to right: Fig. 17-19. Jack London Square.

Bottom, left to right: Fig. 20-23. Proposed site.

Site

71

Toward A Collective Architecture

Fig. 24. Port of Oakland.

Fig. 25. Oakland Lumber Co., 417 First St. (Embarcadero), 1894.

Site

San Francisco is a beacon of creativity and innovation. It

is home to a growing number of tech giants, which have brought prosperity and work to the Bay Area. However, this has created an issue in the housing market, because the cost of housing has dramatically escalated while the housing stock has grown very little.21

However, across the bay is the city of Oakland. Originally

developed hurriedly during the years of the Gold Rush, Oakland soon developed into an industrial town, establishing a rail system. It became an industrial point of connection between the Pacific Ocean and United States, although it has always seemed to be more of a backdrop compared to San Francisco.

Like many American cities, Oakland saw a great deal of

disinvestment during White Flight, and developed a renown for its high rates of crime. Despite, or perhaps more accurately, due to the obvious defects, Oakland attracted a number of artists. Oakland saw a strategic plan for redeveloping the city in 2001, since Mayor Quan enacted his “10k plan,” effectively reducing crime, and offering a more affordable housing market. In more recent years it seems to have attracted a growing population of millennials—who commute to either Berkeley or San Francisco—many of whom cannot afford the price point of the rest of the Bay.

Because of its location, and the progressive culture of northern

California, Oakland allows a feasible future for co-housing. The site is located two blocks east of Jack London Square. Currently (north to south) it consists of a parking lot, undeveloped land, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and the Oakland Estuary. The northernmost boundary of the site is constrained by Embarcadero West and the Amtrak rail. Beyond this are a parking garage and an Amtrak station, connected to the site by only two pedestrian skywalks. To the east is a generic mid-rise

21. Kate Abbey-Lambertz. “There’s A Profoundly Simple Explanation For San Francisco’s Housing Crisis.”

Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 02 June 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

73

Toward A Collective Architecture

Rail corridor

Farmer’s market

Site

apartment complex of no notoriety; to the west is a multi-use office tower. This tower has a ground floor, which operating as an artisan food market, and anchor for a farmers’ market that stretches from the site to Jack London Square.

The train to the north has attracted a curious crowd of

videographers, who document these trains. The tracks are on the same grade as the road, and offer little restriction for drivers or pedestrians to cross. The sounds of the train are worth noting here. It blasts its horn throughout most of its journey through the Port of Oakland. The level crossings also produce a significant amount of noise as the train crosses.

Western prevailing winds grace the coast with a much less

artificial noise. While there are certainly horn blasts of distant ships at the Port of Oakland, the audible perception is far more natural.

The cranes at the Port of Oakland are visible from most of the

Estuary shoreline, and represent the industrial sector of Oakland. It is said that the cranes at the harbor inspired George Lucas’s AT-AT. The looming cranes rise from a desolate plateau, unloading ships and piling endless stacked rows of shipping containers. This industrial plateau conveys the sublime through its vast openness juxtaposed to the large scale of the cranes, and in a way celebrates an industrial heritage that has long been the beating heart of Oakland.

The conditions of the site can seem to be a clean slate upon

which a design can be imposed without disrupting the current positive conditions. The metanarrative of the collective has room on this site to explore both external (urban) and internal (architectural) implications.

75

Toward A Collective Architecture

Existing paths

Site

Existing axis

77

Toward A Collective Architecture

Solar tracking

Site

Prevailing winds

79

Toward A Collective Architecture

Sonic condition

Site

ES

TU

AR Y

View sheds

81

Toward A Collective Architecture

PR

ES

ER VE

VIE

WC

C-4

5

RE S CIV IDEN TIA CO IC L M CU MER STO CIA MM L AN UFA C

TU

C-4

5

RE S CIV IDEN TIA CO IC L M CU MER STO CIA MM L AN UFA

CT

Existing zoning regulations

UR

ING

RIN

G

OR

RID

OR

S

Site

Existing green

83

Toward A Collective Architecture

Path objectives

Site

Courtyard development

85

Toward A Collective Architecture

Massing

Site

Subtraction

87

Toward A Collective Architecture

Site

89

Toward A Collective Architecture

(TBD)

Chapter Title

PROJECT

91

Toward A Collective Architecture

outdoor kitchen

cohouse

housing

private office conf.

studio

work community

print lab

cowork fabrication lab

informal community coffee

robot wc

Program analysis

kitchen

Project

93

Toward A Collective Architecture

Massing

Project

Elevate to create privacy

95

Toward A Collective Architecture

Dispersion

Project

Punctures

97

Toward A Collective Architecture

Ground floor plan

Project

Elevated floor plan

99

Toward A Collective Architecture

Module axonometric

Project

101

Toward A Collective Architecture

Project

103

Toward A Collective Architecture

Project

105

Toward A Collective Architecture

Project

107

Toward A Collective Architecture

Project

109

Toward A Collective Architecture

Project

111

Toward A Collective Architecture

Project

113

Toward A Collective Architecture

Project

115

Toward A Collective Architecture

Chapter Title

CONCLUSION

117

Toward A Collective Architecture

Conclusion

The contemporary American culture has been driven by a

notion of individualism and self-originating authenticity. This thesis finds its point of departure from the critique of this vision. Individualism, pushed to its extreme, looks inward for meaning and will reject external influence. This results in instrumental rationality, which eventually propagates political consequences. The industrial-technological society has institutions that favor instrumental rationality, which may ultimately cause people to turn off, and where government will become mild and paternalistic regimes that continue unopposed. There are two sides to every story: one which supports the individual’s pursuit, and the other which reaches back to the nostalgia of the pre-modern social structure.

However these do no catalyze change, but instead polarize the issue.

Both must be rejected.

The antidote is a social cohesion that promotes participation.

There can be a deeper meaning found in certain cohesions. To be cohesive, there will undoubtedly be a series of restrictions so that the operation may be uniform. This posits a view that an individual finds their identity in the context of other individuals. This is the primary objective of the collective.

While there is philosophical logic that drives the collective, there

is also a pragmatic solution found in shared economy. San Francisco is a hub for creativity and innovation, but cost of living is astronomical.

As a result many millennials commute from Oakland to both San Francisco and Berkeley. Oakland developed rapidly due to the gold rush, and eventually became a great industrial city. The Port of Oakland on the Estuary is therefore a significant district of the city. Here is a district called Jack London Square, which currently attracts local food markets and hosts civic events. The site was selected to participate and enhance the social cohesion.

119

Toward A Collective Architecture

(TBD)

Chapter Title

REFERENCES

121

Toward A Collective Architecture

Image References

Figure 1. “Charles Taylor.” Daily Nous: News for and About the Philosphical Profession. Daily Nous, 4 Oct. 2016, http://dailynous. com/2016/10/04/charles-taylor-wins-million-dollar-berggruen-prize/ Figure 2. OMA. “Dutch Parliament Extension.” OMA, 1978, http://oma. eu/projects/dutch-parliament-extension Figure 3. Havneraas , Jason, Grethe Fredriksen. “Fireplace for Children.” Arch Daily. 14 Dec. 2009, http://www.archdaily.com/43809/ fireplace-for-children-haugenzohar-arkitekter Figure 4. Schoenauer, Norbert. “Briton Roundhouse.” 6,000 Years of Housing. New York, W. W. Norton, 2003, 34.

Figure 5. Schoenauer, Norbert. “Roman Townhome.” 6,000 Years of Housing. New York, W. W. Norton, 2003, 139.

Figure 6. Schoenauer, Norbert. “Hall-parlor Home.” 6,000 Years of Housing. New York, W. W. Norton, 2003, 88.

Figure 7. Schoenauer, Norbert. “Open Plan.” 6,000 Years of Housing.

New York, W. W. Norton, 2003, 392.

Figure 8. Archirost. “The Narkomfin.” Archirost Visualization Studio. http://archirost.tilda.ws/narkomfinbuildingeng Figure 9. Noshe. “R-50 Co-housing.” Metropolis. 10 June 2015, http:// www.metropolismag.com/architecture/residential-architecture/dont-call-

References

it-a-commune-inside-berlin-radical-cohousing-project/ Figure 10. “Swan’s Market Co-housing.” Swan’s Market Co-housing. http://swansway.com Figure 11. Linder, Dirk. “Central Parade.” Dezeen. 29 Aug. 2016, https:// www.dezeen.com/2016/08/29/walthamstow-central-parade-gort-scottrenovation-1960s-block-london-co-working-maker-space-uk-adaptivereuse/ Figure 12. “WeWork Pricing Scheme.” WeWork. https://www.wework. com/plans Figure 13. “WeWork Embarcadero Center.” WeWork. https://www. wework.com/buildings/embarcadero-center--san-francisco--CA Figure 14. Riddle, Paul. “Newhall Be.” Arch Daily. 9 Aug. 2013, http:// www.archdaily.com/412945/newhall-south-chase-alison-brooksarchitects Figure 15. Von Sternberg, Morley.“Donnybrook Quarter.” Archilovers.

27 Feb. 2014, http://www.archilovers.com/projects/118274/donnybrookquarter.html Figure 16. “Justus Van Effen Complex.” De Oud Rotterdammer. 18 Sep. 2012, http://www.deoudrotterdammer.nl/archief/dor/2012/week38_ jaargang8/files/assets/basic-html/page15.html Figure 17. Putnam, Tory. “Jack London Square.” Bay Area Bites. 27.

123

Toward A Collective Architecture

Oct. 2016, https://ww2.kqed.org/bayareabites/2016/10/27/cuesa-throwsharvest-festival-to-celebrate-jack-london-square-farmers-market/ Figure 18. Wong, Harry K. “Untitled.” Rail Pictures. 8 Jan. 2005, http:// www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=90651&showexif=1 Figure 20. Putnam, Tory. “Jack London Square Farmer’s Market.” San Francisco Eater. 27 Oct. 2016, http://sf.eater.com/2016/10/27/13414944/ cuesa-jack-london-square-harvest-festival Figure 21. Quist, Nathan. “Untitled.” Behance. 2 June 2015, https://www. behance.net/gallery/26766519/Oakland-Shoot-I Figure 22. “249 Embarcadero West.” Google Street View. Sep. 2016, https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jack+London+Square Figure 23. Kushi-Willis, Alexander. “Jack London Square.” Google Photo Sphere. Sep. 2005, https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Jack+London+Square Figure 24. Bloomberg News. “Port of Oakland.” The Wall Street Journal.

12 Jan. 2016, https://www.wsj.com/articles/port-of-oakland-importsexports-dropped-in-december-1452630965 Figure 25. Oakland Public Library. “Oakland Lumber Co.” Cali Sphere. https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/kt9779r2xr/

References

125

Toward A Collective Architecture

Bibliography

Abbey-Lambertz, Kate. “There’s A Profoundly Simple Explanation For San Francisco’s Housing Crisis.” Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 02 June 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

Anderton, Frances. “Berlin’s R50 Baugruppe Is a Model of Living Affordably, Collectively.” Design Architecture. KCRW, 31 July 2015.

Web. 26 Aug. 2016.

Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark R. Leary. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.”

Psychological Bulletin 117.3 (1995): 497-529. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Bentley, Chris. “Can Boomers Make Cohousing Mainstream?” CityLab. The Atlantic, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Bridger, Jessica. “Don’t Call It A Commune.” Metropolis. Metropolis Magazine, May 2015. Web. 26 Aug. 2016.

Denison, Edward, and Guang Ren Yu. The Life of the British Home: An Architectural History. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print.

Dishman, Lydia. “Co-working Spaces Are the Trend, but Do More Colleagues Mean More Problems?” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 28 Sept. 2015. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Droste, Christiane. “German co-housing: an opportunity for municipalities to foster socially inclusive urban development?” Urban

References

Research & Practice, vol. 8, no. 1, 2015., pp. 79-92.doi:10.1080/175350 69.2015.1011428.

Giménez, Antonio, and Conchi Monzonís. Collective Housing. Alboraya: Pencil, 2006. Print.

Heckmann, Oliver, and Friederike Schneider. Floor Plan Manual Housing. Basel: Birkhauser, 2011. Print.

Henley, Simon. “London Calling: How to Solve the Housing Crisis.” Arch Daily. N.p., 02 Oct. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Merkel, Janet. “Co-working in the city.” Ephemera, vol. 15, no. 1, 2015., pp. 121.

Nandini, Alessandro. ‘The rise of co-working spaces: A literature review.’

Ephemera, vol. 15, no. 1, 2015., pp. 193.

“Newhall South Chase / Alison Brooks Architects.” Arch Daily. Arch Daily, 08 Aug. 2013. Web. 05 July 2016.

New Forms of Collective Housing in Europe. Basel: Birkhaüser, 2009.

Print.

Pedersen, Max. “Senior Co-Housing Communities in Denmark.” Journal of Housing For the Elderly, vol. 29, no. 1-2, 2015., pp. 126.doi:10.1080/0 2763893.2015.989770.

127

Toward A Collective Architecture

Per, Aurora Fernández, Javier Mozas, and Alex Ollero S. 10 Stories of Collective Housing: Graphical Analysis of Inspiring Masterpieces. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Per, Aurora Fernández, Javier Mozas, and Javier Arpa. Dbook: Density, Data, Diagrams, Dwellings: Análisis Visual De 64 Proyectos De Vivienda Colectiva. Vitoria-Gasteiz: T Ediciones, 2007. Print.

Rief, Stefan, and Klaus-Peter Stiefel. “Harnessing the Potential of Coworking.” Haworth, May 2016.

Rus, Andrej, and Marko Orel. “Co-working: A community of work.”

Teorija in Praksa, vol. 52, no. 6, 2015., pp. 1017-1038.

Schneider, Keith. “Chattanooga’s Innovation District Beckons to Young Entrepreneurs.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Spreitzer, Gretchen, Peter Bacevice, and Lyndon Garrett. “Why People Thrive in Coworking Spaces.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Review, 6 Sept. 2015. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Squires, Nick. “Syrian Refugee Shot by Slovakian Border Guards.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 09 May 2016. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1992. Print.

Tummers, Lidewij. “The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in

References

Europe: A critical review of co-housing research.” URBAN STUDIES, vol.

53, no. 10, 2016., pp. 2023-2040.doi:10.1177/0042098015586696.

Tummers, Lidewij. “Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how?” Urban Research & Practice, vol. 8, no. 1, 2015., pp. 64-78.doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011427.

129