Symbiotic Community By Rolf Huijgen 4091507
Experiences
Knowledge
Space Heat
Share
Study materials Rent
Home grown food Transportation Labor
Local produced energy Meals
Friends Study time
Location: Tu Delft Campus
Why student housing? Problem statement
Discontinued student funding + rising cost for studying + expensive student housing = less students living close at the faculty, less experiences
Main goals oo Design a co-habitation environment that allows students to efficiently use unused space. oo Design an living environment that helps students to cut down on their expenses (expenditure).
Living away from parents International students Living with parents
Target Group - Students Common characteristics
Partyer- extrovert - unhealthy
oo Huge variety in students and their habits ЄЄ Different study schedules ЄЄ Sports & hobbies ЄЄ Social or non-social ЄЄ Healthy/unhealthy oo Short stay (3 to 10 years) oo Relatively long amounts of time away from home (traveling, minor, weekends with the parents, association activities, etc). oo Low income either loan, parental funding or job oo Huge fluctuations in expenditure (partying, holidays, new hobbies, books, etc).
Nerd-introvert-unhealthy
Student growth
Junior student
oo Not a lot of friends in the city yet oo Not a lot of possessions
VS
Senior student
oo Know what they want oo Less compulsory courses oo More possessions
Variable expenses
Fixed expenses Social activities
Food
Insurances
Sport
Study products Entertainment products
Education Payment plans
Student financial balance Usages costs (energy, water, disposal)
Parental Part-time job
Additional services
Loan Student funding (270 â‚Ź per month) Funding
m2 private space
Building costs
Students per shared functions Housing rent
Co habitation Cheap student housing oo Private rooms need daylight, result narrow rooms (roughly 15m2 each) oo Landlord - optimizing max rent point system oo Living room is a luxury, often combined with kitchen oo Efficient hallway for private room distribution
Common area Bathroom Balcony Private room Extra facilities Vertical circulation Kitchen
Co-habitation characteristics Positives oo Relatively low rent, sharing expensive functions ЄЄ Higher function/m2 ratio if ЄЄ Affordable shared luxury functions oo Lower expenses on food consumption - Buying in bulk oo Sharing labor (cleaning, urban farming, cooking, etc) oo Shared experiences/knowledge - strengthen relationships oo Ability to share secondary necessities (bicycles, car, books, tools, etc)
Negatives oo Compromising is necessity oo Noise problems oo The lack of privacy
Core design aspects Separating study from relaxing
Community between housing
oo Reduces personal conflict
oo Share knowledge or experiences
Relax
or
oo Divide labor; growing, cooking, building etc. Study
oo Be part of something bigger than yourself!
Give more control on privacy
More control on expenditure
oo Multiple common areas
oo Make rent a variable
oo Ability to expand or shrink private rooms
oo Optimally share common facilities
oo Control on visual privacy from outside
Sharing space Between Private rooms - Negotiation process
Between Private & shared spaces - Real time
Reconfiguring spaces results in oo Dilemma lower rent vs. more stuff oo More control on privacy. oo Less clutter = Less distractions = More time to spend on things that matter.
?
Reconfigurable environments
Storage
Sto
rag
e
Storage
Integrated
Constraints reconfigurable environments oo Allows for compact living - with high amount of privacy. oo Should be easy to use both manually and robotically! oo Can be integrated with different functionalities such as: kitchen, table, benches, bed, desk, storage, etc. oo Private walls require a modular build to make it personal. oo Should still act as an acoustic barrier
Modular
Space reconfiguration techniques
Easy reconfigurations
multi-functional Interior Rietveld - Sliding walls
PKMN Architects - Sliding Walls
PKMN architectures - Rotating wall
Yo Home - Raising floor
Pop-up apartment
Compact building
ALBED - rotating and sliding
URHouse - Pushable walls
Naked House - Rolling interior MIMA house - Modular Wall grid
Space efficiency
Reconfiguration techniques Rotating Walls
Sliding Walls
oo Both robotic & manually oo Easy to Use oo Constraint to pivot points
oo Both robotic & manually operated oo Easy to use oo Constraint to track on the ceiling
2 1
Rising / lowering platforms
Rolling interior
oo Both robotic & manually operated oo Constraint to a single location
oo oo oo oo
Manually operated Constraint to a floor level Allows for quick changes Not suitable for big objects
Sliding + Rotating
oo oo oo oo
Practical space Can be manually & robotically moved Easy to use NO COLUMNS!!!!
Endless configurations
Reconfigurable space layout Radial
- Unpractical spaces no corners + Better views - Max 2 possible neighbors + Ideal for sliding - Walls need to stretch
Hexagonal
- Requires more walls to enclose a space - 120 degree corners + Max 6 possible neighbors + Ideal for rotating and sliding
Linear
+ 90 degree corners - Max 2 neighbors + Ideal for sliding - Perpendicular walls need to extend
Orthogonal
+ Practical spaces - 90 degree corners + Max 4 possible neighbors + Ideal for sliding and rotating
Modular Interior activity
Rotating & sliding wall
Table
Desk
Storage
oo Reading oo (Studying) oo Gaming
oo Watching oo Storing oo Un(dressing)
Bed
Kitchen
oo Sleeping oo Sex oo (Lounging)
oo Cooking oo Storing food
oo oo oo oo
Meeting Eating Playing Reading
400
100
Wall construction requirements oo oo oo oo
Acoustic barrier - no noise complaints Light weight - easy to push As slim as possible - more functional space Soundproof connection between walls (Magnetic property or foam-like)
Single private unit Murphy bed
Private unit - 5,3 m2 floor Modular wall (2.5 m3) oo Storage oo oo Desk oo oo TV
25
Chairs Couch
250 common function
100 isolation 250
140
Neighbor
Utilization area
200
2300
800
2300
400 100 isolation
Activity private room
1 UNIT -5.3 m2 floor Sleeping, sex, lounging
Working, gaming, lounging
Lounging, watching TV, etc.
2300 2300
2 UNITS 10.6 m2 floor Working together, lounging, workout, etc.
Rule 1: 4 walls can become one unit of space (rent reduces for both students)
Rule 5: Shared space is returned when students comes home away
Rule 2: You rent either 1 unit (2 walls) or 2 units
home
(3 walls) of space
1
2
Rule 3: You don’t have to share your units
Rule 4: You can share private space (divide rent)
Rule 6: Swap locations if both students agree
Simplified rent per second (RpS) calculator RpS = ((common units / amount of student) + pUnits)*unit cost modifier (Unit size = 2.8 x 2.8 m)
Keep Give
Rent (Units * m2 cost modifier)
Common units / amount of students
Amount of private units (pUnits)
Take Keep
1 pUnit
Give pUnits-0.5
2 pUnits
Take pUnits+1
Special units Entrance/Stairs - 1 unit
oo Reconfigurable oo 1 unit per 8 students oo Requires daylight
2500
2500 2500
oo Either entrance, stairs or both oo 1 unit per floor oo Static
Dinner table - 1 unit
2000
Kitchen - 1 or 2 units
Bathroom - 1 unit
oo Requires daylight oo 1 kitchen per 8 students oo Reconfigurable
2500
2500
oo 2 showers, 2 toilets oo 1 unit per 8 students oo Static
2500
2500
Elevator - 1 unit 2500
Example floorplan
S Common area 15.9 m2
Dinner table
Lounging
Entrance / stairs
Bathroom
Kitchen
Working, gaming, etc.
Sleeping
Activity scenario
S Wake up - prepare meal - eat at dinner table - leave house
Common area 31.8m2
Relax in common area - room disappears Start studying - increase room size
Common area 26.5 m2
Party
Common area 47.7 m2
Stop studying - prepare for dinner and party
Common area 26.5 m2
Common area 10.6 m2
Master layout Tower configuration
+ Easy to achieve more privacy, no pedestrians. + Sharing warmth is more efficient + Higher student density - Vertical farming competes with daylight for housing
Landscape configuration
- Privacy issues with Ground floor + More space/daylight for food production + Collective space on ground floor + Collective activity visible from housing
Master plan reference Interlace
Location analysis - Points of interest
Location Analysis Surrounded by nature
oo (Natural) barrier reinforces privacy from outside
Juli
Sun Analysis
oo Almost no obstruction of direct daylight
December
oo Higher buildings have more access to sun light for passive heating
Urban strategy s r e et
m 5 1
>
Housing Community
>120 degrees
Privacy oo Distance between housing on the same level > 10 meters oo Angle between housing 120 > degrees < 240
Housing program oo Private/common rooms oo Private terrace oo Private food/spices garden
Community program oo Study Rooms (no direct sunlight) oo Extra kitchens/dining for community dinners oo Bicycle storage oo Food storage (no direct sunlight) oo Meeting space - outside/inside oo Entertainment facilities oo Food production
Urban Strategy Connectivity
oo Connect to existing infrastructure oo Prevent community from becoming shortcut
Optimal cluster position
oo Sun radiated roof terraces oo Optimal food production oo Passive cooling by building orientation oo Privacy for the private rooms
Private community
oo Reinforce private community with a moat oo Courtyards not visible from outside
Sustainability Strategy Decentralized Grid
Natural Waste disposal
Modular building oo Highly standardized elements result in prefab building process
oo Reinforces private community
Reduce Unused empty space Energy losses / compact building Natural Grey water cleansing (helofyte)
Reuse Waste flows heat, energy, food (Decentralized Grid) Collect rainwater / convert to drinking water
Produce Produce food for the community Clean sustainable energy with the help of sun collectors
KNOWLEDGE
Computational Strategy
SCRIPTS
Reconfiguration simulation 24 student Activity
Adaptive lighting
Floor plan generator Space properties
oo oo oo oo oo oo
Minimal function space Private / public Affected by noise Need for daylight Rigidity of the interior Function per students
Configuration techniques
Rotating Walls
Sliding Walls
oo Both robotic & manually oo Easy to Use oo Constraint to pivot point
oo Both robotic & manually operated oo Constraint to track on the ceiling
oo oo oo oo
oo Rising / lowering Floors/Ceiling
Rolling interior
oo oo oo oo
oo Both robotic & manually operated oo Constraint to a floor level oo Allows for quick changes oo
Both robotic & manually operated Constraint to a single location Can completely disappear Suspension is a necessity
Opt: Students/common facilities ratio Opt: Daylight / direct sunlight on common area Note: A box is not necessarily the result.
oo
oo oo
Animate Simulate usage interior and collective space
Multi agent based modeling
Cluster positioning
Community space
Constraints oo Min Dimensions oo Possible configurations per unit oo Possible orientation oo Layout
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
Opt: Indirect daylight where needed. System that follows the activity of the user
Opt: Visual privacy Opt: Daylight for program Opt: Direct sunlight for roof terrace Min: Wind problems Opt: Structural optimization Daylight (Ladybug)
oo oo oo oo oo oo
Opt: Food production Opt: Scenic route that connects all courtyards and collective functions Shape of the island Daylight (Ladybug) Anemone (multi-agend based modeling)
Final design
oo oo
Materialize Render
Future Developments oo
Urban strategy - vertical student city: optimizing student density
oo oo oo
More variation in floorplan
Thank You