Affordable Housing: Cost-efficient Models for the Future 9783955534493, 9783955534486

Citation preview

Affordable H ­ ousing Cost-effective Models for the Future

Edition

Affordable H ­ ousing Sandra Hofmeister (Ed.)

Edition

Cost-effective Models for the Future

005 Preface Sandra Hofmeister 007 Housing in Vienna The City’s Actual World Heritage Assets Dietmar Steiner 015 From Requirements to Needs Thomas Jocher 021 Approaches and Tendencies in Prefabricated Housing Roland Pawlitschko 029 Planning-Related Aspects for Cost-Efficient Building Benedikt Hartl

Cooperative 035 Mehr als Wohnen Cooperative Housing, Z ­ urich, CH Duplex Architekten, pool Architekten 043 Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH Schneider Studer Primas Floor plan and cubage 057 Apartment Blocks Montmartre, Paris, FR Atelier Kempe Thill, Fres Architectes 067 Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler 079 HipHouse, Zwolle, NL Atelier Kempe Thill Prefabrication 087 Residential Building, Dantebad, Munich, DE Florian Nagler Architekten 097 White Clouds, Saintes, FR MORE architecture, poggi Architecture 105 Frankie & Johnny, Berlin, DE Holzer Kobler Architekturen 113 Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES dataAE, Harquitectes Spatial modules of wood 127 Student Hostel Woodie, Hamburg, DE Sauerbruch Hutton 137 Housing Complex, R ­ ive-de-Gier, FR Tectoniques Architectes 147 Modular Housing, ­Toulouse, FR PPA architectures

Appendix 188 Project participants 190 Authors 191 Picture Credits 192 Imprint

Materials and standards 159 Social Housing, Paris, FR Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes 169 Vaudeville Court, L ­ ondon, GB Levitt Bernstein 177 Patio Houses, Cabeza del Buey, ES Antonio Holgado Gómez

005 Preface

In many metropolises, housing shortage is setting ever new records on a daily basis. The limited supply of afford­able housing faces steadily growing, high demand in numerous places. In light of exploding prices in the housing market, there is a pressing need for action. Many cities and governments, in the meanwhile, recognise that it is their primary duty to create as much affordable housing as quickly as possible. Often, however, land prices exceed construction costs, attracting the attention of investors and making housing space a capital investment promising profit. In order to meet the need for affordable flats, convincing models and concepts are required that are cost-efficient, sustainable, and forward-thinking. Financing and relevant funding instruments, as well as the reduction of construction costs, and the rapid implementability of residential buildings are significant challenges for architects and clients. Last but not least, however, the quality of housing shouldn’t fall by the wayside, which is, unfortunately, currently all too often the case. Alongside deliberations on floor plans, it is the careful selection of building materials, including their constructional application, as well as social aspects, which constitute decisive approaches for the architecture in this context. How can, however, cost reductions be achieved without forgoing important qualities for the residents? The essays in this book shed light all these challenges, introducing different perspectives and discussing historical as well as topical examples. In doing so, planning methods and processes on the construction site are addressed that can contribute to a reduction in building costs. At the same time, social aspects and historical interrelationships are also taken up, as in the example of Vienna, a metropolis which is considered a role model for funded housing construction. The project part of the book presents 15 exemplary residential buildings in Europe, providing insights into a variety of concrete measures for reducing costs. Current projects, such as in Paris, Berlin, London, or Zwolle, are discussed in the texts and are presented along with architectural photographs and plans. Construction details in a scale of 1:20 round out the project documentations, outlining various cost-efficient construction methods. The systematic organisation of the exemplary projects according to ­selected keywords permits an overview of the diverse approaches and solutions for cost reduction in housing construction. Sandra Hofmeister

007

Housing in Vienna The City’s Actual World Heritage Assets

Dietmar Steiner

The housing crisis is here again. Affordable housing in ci­ ties is a predominant issue. In this debate, international media and observers frequently refer to examples of housing in Vienna as a positive strategy. The secret of this success is easy to explain: in order to provide affordable flats in cities, a cohesive housing policy is required that restrictively intervenes in the housing sector. There is no example from anywhere in the world, where the market itself, i. e. the housing economy, is in a position to provide afford­ able accommodation for the majority of the population. Though the real estate industry likes to claim that, if only a sufficient number of flats were constructed, there would also be affordable flats. However, especially during the current construction boom, where an appreciable number of freely financed flats is being developed in Vienna, only people with the matching capital resources can afford the rents or purchase prices—and prices don’t necessarily fall as more construction takes place. Affordable flats are only made possible by a corresponding housing policy—and Vienna serves as a pertinent example. In this context, some facts may briefly be provided here: Vienna currently has approximately 1.9 million inhabitants. Like Germany and Switzerland, Austria also has a rental culture. The relatively high proportion of the urban population in Vienna lives in council flats and rented flats from state-funded housing construction. At present, there are approximately 220,000 council flats and 200,000 flats belonging to non-profit building societies. Approximately 43 % of

Housing in Vienna

Karl-Marx-Hof, Vienna, 1927–1930 Karl Ehn

008 all flats in Vienna are socially contracted on a permanent basis; a quarter of the entire housing stock belongs to the city. In contrast to Germany, funded flats remain in possession of the municipal or non-profit property developers. They cannot pass into the free market after a certain period of time. This also means that their rents remain affordable in the long-term, i. e. until the end of the building’s life, and currently range from 4 – 7 Euro/m2. Rent increases cannot take place randomly, but rather conform to the official statistical index of consumer prices. To this day, the Austrian tenancy law also guarantees that these flats are “inheritable” by family members, under given conditions and under certain circumstances. Overall, Viennese housing policy has resulted in having a relevant quantity of affordable flats at its disposal on a permanent basis. In principle, the housing economy is inevitably also an economic factor. The expenditure for housing should always be seen in relation to the income of the people concerned. If the monthly expenditure for housing exceeds approximately 30 % of the available income, political and economic consequences are inevitable. Therefore, the demand for affordable rents always has to be seen in relation to income. The social housing of Red Vienna from the inter-war period was socially and politically such a success because among other things, the affordable council housing rents also allowed the wages of workers to be kept at a comparatively low level for the reconstruction of the Austrian economy following the First World War. This special political position of the housing economy has historical foundations. At the turn of the century, Vienna found itself in a drastic situation. Around 1900, approximately 300,000 Viennese did not have a flat of their own, while the lives of workers and employees in the city were characterised by tenements, communal water taps in the corridors of blocks of rented flats, and bed-renting lodgers who rented a bed for a short period of time that was used by several people. The misery of the masses formed the true background for the splendour of the Ring Road, and the glamour of the fin de siècle. However, following the end of the First World War and the downfall of the mon­ archy, social democratic powers took over the city. In conjunction with many other social reforms, the communal housing of Red Vienna, which has become legendary today, was implemented. Approximately 60,000 communal flats were constructed. At the end of this programme, when the Austro-fascists came to power and largely discontinued the housing programme, every tenth Viennese resident already lived in council housing. Super-blocks in Red Vienna During the hardship following the First World War, the settler movement also emerged, of which Adolf Loos was the chief architect for a while. The movement followed the ideas of the garden city movement, self-sufficiency, and participative housing development. It settled—partly spontaneously—gaps in the urban environment, though

Dietmar Steiner

Wohnzimmer Sonnwendviertel, Vienna, 2014 StudioVlayStreeruwitz, Riepl Kaufmann Bammer Architektur, Klaus Kada

Housing for a mix of generations “am Mühlgrund”, Vienna, 2011 Herman Czech, Adolf-Krischanitz, Werner Neuwirth

009 it lacked a long-term urban strategy. In contrast, the urban development-related housing policy of Red Vienna used the existing infrastructure of the monarchy to realise its large housing complexes at strategically and politically effective locations in the city. In terms of urban development, they alternated between small-town idylls, such as the Sandleitenhof, and monumental manifestoes like the Karl-Marx-Hof. The projects deliberately did not follow modernist architectural ideals of the 1920s, but were conventional brick buildings. This allowed as many unemployed people as possible to be put to work on the construction sites. The central element of Red Vienna’s housing programme was the super-block. To the present day, it is unclear whether this was due to an urban planning and architectural doctrine, or whether this specific building structure resulted from merely pragmatic conditions. Many buildings in Red Vienna were designed by Otto Wagner’s students, who followed a Roman­tic nationalist school during the 1920s. After the Second World War and the initial years of reconstruction, Vienna followed the international dogmas of satellite cities and prefabrication. Since these city extensions were developed by municipal and non-profit property developers (who administer them to this day), social conflicts could be avoided. The paradigm shift occurred during the 1970s. The rediscovery of the historic city demonstrated that Vienna still had a vast stock of flats from the Gründerzeit of the nineteenth century. There followed a halt to the demolitions for so-called “area rehabilitation”. Many still recall the house squatting that took place in the same period in Europe. The idea was also to conserve the stock of affordable housing available in European cities. Renovation and tenant loans The city of Vienna reacted to this situation with a clever and subtle concept. Based on the Austrian law of tenancy, which provides for life-long contracts and reduces the rent increase to the level of inflation, the tenants received offers for housing renovation loans with extremely favourable conditions. They used these loans to renovate their flats, replace the coal-fired and oil heaters with gas central heating, and install bathrooms. Moreover, the famous, communally used “corridor toilet” was relocated into the flat. In this way, practically the entire historical housing stock of the Gründerzeit in Vienna was renovated by the tenants and upgraded to a modern standard. Nevertheless, it was possible to retain the affordable rents. As a consequence, however, this resulted in two problems with respect to the present-day situation: there are practically no substandard flats anymore with correspondingly low rents; and due to the capped rents for this building stock, the income that homeowners are able to obtain from the historical stock is too low in times of so-called “concrete gold”. Therefore, the desire for demolition of the Gründerzeit-era building stock, and new reconstruction of freely financed flats, is currently a major urban policy issue.

Housing in Vienna

Timber building Seestadt Aspern, 2015 Berger + Parkkinen-Architekten and querkraft Architekten

010 Urban renewal as social project Nonetheless, the city of Vienna continued to abide by its social housing policy for many decades all the way up to the present day, while developing it further. In the meantime, the Red Vienna of the interwar period became the architectural world heritage of the city. In 1984, the Wiener Bodenbereitstellungs- und Stadt­ erneuerungs­fonds (Vienna Land Supply and Urban Renewal Fund) was founded, a kind of central body for building projects by non-profit property developers who construct state-­funded flats. The fund primarily pursued two goals: it was to qualitatively control the non-profit property developers in their business practices and architectural work, who have traditionally been closely linked to, and remain close to, the political parties SPÖ and ÖVP. This was connected to the fund’s secondary role, which acted as the sole purchaser of tracts of land for social housing. It agreed on a binding purchase price, which was then left to the discretion of, i. e. offered to, individual property developers. In doing so, the market power of the property owners was suspended, allowing architecturally ambitious projects with affordable rents to be implemented. There are many projects from the post-modern period, that are able to compete with those of the IBA Berlin in 1987, the world exhibition of architecture at the time, but which have disappeared from view in today’s historicist neo-modernity. New settlements emerged on the outskirts of urban areas within the historical stock, with high standard infill projects inserted into gaps between buildings. This is often forgotten today. Instead, Metabolist concepts of late modernity, such as the “housing mountains” of Alt-Erlaa, are attracting attention once again. The contracting model of this institution, which has been renamed wohnfonds_wien (residential fund_vienna), was subsequently modified in 1995. The residential fund no longer acted as the sole buyer in the property market, and the non-profit property developers were able to make purchases directly with the property owners, which led to a loss of control over property prices. However, an upper property price limit for funded housing construction was specified (at approximately 350 Euro/m²), which makes it increasingly difficult to acquire corresponding property. In the 1990s this wasn’t a problem yet, since the actual driver of prices in social housing at the time was the interest on borrowings for financing the buildings. Nevertheless, the wohnfond_wien to this day remains active in acquiring property and currently has 2.8 million square metres of housing at its disposal for social housing in Vienna. Quality and competition Developer’s competitions were held for the design of these residential blocks, which were handled by an advisory council on quality, appointed by the residential fund. The ad­visory council, which is comprised of independent experts, has been meeting on a monthly basis since then. It examines every housing project to be funded according to urban development, architectural, energy, and ­ social

011

Dietmar Steiner

2 1

3

5

4

6 6

7

8

Timber building Seestadt Aspern Axonometric drawing 1 Rented offices 2 Communal balcony 3 Games and ­clubroom, sauna, ­fitness, laundry 4 Shops 5 Studio flats 6 Bicycles + E-bikes 7 Electric cars (22 parking spaces) 8 Access to underground garage (409 car-parking spaces)

c­ riteria, and evaluates the appropriateness of the building costs and rental contracts. Projects that require funding but don’t correspond to the judgement of the advisory council have to be revised. The implementation of a developer’s competition is mandatory for schemes with more than 300 flats. For this purpose, developers and architects jointly apply with a design and a detailed cost breakdown, which are then assessed by a jury. This procedure is undoubtedly too bureaucratic at present, but nevertheless it guarantees a built quality, which—excluding the luxury segment—lies well above that of freely financed housing construction in Vienna. Around 10,000 social housing units are constructed per year in Vienna using this method. Public funding for this purpose comprises approximately 600 million Euros annually. This sum also includes funding for the renovation of existing buildings. In the case of first-time occupancy, the flats currently cost a rent of approximately 7 Euros/m2. Nevertheless, a so-called “basic cost fee” (Grund­kosten­ beitrag) of about 60 Euros/m2 metre also has to be paid. In doing so, a proportion of the units are always allocated on the basis of the requirement criteria of the municipality of Vienna, while the remaining units can be allocated by the developer of a funded project under similar conditions. An important aspect here is that the threshold of entitlement for a funded flat is set very high in an attempt to deliberately target the middle class. Alongside the residential buildings planned with funding from the official housing subsidy, the search for other possible forms of financing is on-going, in order to implement more projects. For instance, an initiative of the City of Vienna enables the municipality itself to take out loans on favourable terms and pass them on to the developers for constructing and renting out flats under conditions comparable to those of funded housing. Nevertheless, in recent years the municipality has recognised that this funding is insufficient to reach people who are really in need. To begin with, municipal housing was halted in 2003, as it had been assumed that funded housing would meet the requirement in a socially sustainable manner. Though it has been proven that a quality-controlled competition is also conducive to the best economic solutions, the entry threshold was still too high for those seeking flats. As a result, the old council housing was revived, where flats are allocated without the basic cost fee, thereby ensuring a basic supply that can only be provided with further increased public funds. Social responsibility This leads us back to the question of how the social responsibility of housing provision has developed in Vienna. From 1919 to 1933, around 60,000 council residential flats were created in Red Vienna. Vienna had sustained less damage than German cities following the Second World War—only around 13 % of the entire Viennese housing stock was destroyed, while 90,000 flats were rendered uninhabitable.

Housing in Vienna

Seestadt Aspern, Vienna, 2014–2028

012 Today, approximately 60 % of the Viennese population lives in the “protected sector” comprising funded flats. This shows that these flats not only meet social needs, but that many of the inhabitants are middle class. This was politically intended. In social housing too, social classes should mix, so that, for example, a German university assistant may live in the same building as a cleaning lady from Sri Lanka. It’s a political principle that social standing cannot be ascertained from a residential address. The city’s social mixing rep­resents the only strategy that is able to prevent gentrification, social inequality, and insecurity. Ultimately, it is always political decision-making that sustainably guarantee afford­able housing. Nevertheless, it must also be noted that in times of real estate being perceived as “concrete gold”, new problems have emerged in Vienna. For the first time since the Second World War, there is a booming market for new, privately financed freehold flats, which are, as a rule, seen as an investment and are not used by the buyers themselves, but are usually rented out by the developer. How this new market will develop in future remains uncertain. There aren’t only homeowners renting out flats now, but an increasing number of individual flat owners of a housing community, who hope for returns on renting. Here, the trend towards small flats is apparent, which follows the sociological development of the rise of single-person households. The housing market demonstrates how the classical nuclear family of the post-war period is increasingly eroding. In social, i. e. funded, housing, alternative forms of housing have therefore increasingly established themselves in recent times. In practically every state-funded housing project, the standard supply on offer is complemented by residential groups for apprentices, disabled people, the elderly, or other vulnerable social groups. With the help of so-called “smart flats”, an attempt is being made to once again reduce flat sizes and, in so doing, slow the floor area increase per person, which grew enormously in the twentieth century, in order to enhance affordability. This is to be compensated by the meanwhile established of social housing tradition of providing spacious communal spaces, which can be used for festivities and parties, as well as other activities in the house community. The building group movement has also been recognised as contributing towards enriching the urban environment. These participative community projects are also a supplement in newly built districts, since their aspiration to develop social and communicative proposals in the housing environment can once again create urban diversity. The future of Viennese housing Currently, the municipality of Vienna is working on an IBA, an Internationale Bauaustellung or international building exhibition, which fundamentally differs from the German models of recent decades. The Viennese IBA office is neither an outsourced unit nor a spearhead of new ideas, but is run by internal municipality-based departments. Their only

013

Dietmar Steiner

A3A

Seestadt Aspern Site plan Scale 1:2,500 exclusively residential residential and ­flexible uses production ­businesses all functions ­business all functions apart from residential research and ­development green space social infrastructure culture W1 ausschließlich Wohnen

F&E Forschung und E ntwicklung

W2 Wohnen, flexible Nutzung im EG

S Soziale Infrastruktur

W3 vorwiegend Wohnen, flexible Nutzung in allen Geschossen

K Kultur

P produzierendes Gewerbe

urbane Freifläche

M1 alle Nutzungen außer Gewerbe und Wohnen M2 alle Nutzungen außer Gewerbe

Pufferzone

M3 alle Nutzungen außer Wohnen

Grünfläche

purpose currently, it appears, is the optimisation and initiation of projects which have already been planned according to tried and tested procedures. Vienna is proud of its achievements and intends to improve the showcasing and promotion of them. New methods and experiments have not been planned and proactive participation in the international architectural discourse on the subject is apparently not envisaged. This is despite the fact that two fundamental problems are increasingly posing difficulties for the housing economy of European cities today, requiring a political solution. The question of land ownership is paramount, especially for housing. Faced with the present development, cities urgently need a political strategy for the containment of land speculation. Private ownership of land for private speculation cannot and should not be permitted when no economic performance whatsoever was provided. It is incomprehensible that politicians aren’t doing anything to prevent this injustice, and to limit the price of land. The second problem is the question of land use for creating a new urbanity. Zoning of areas is still oriented towards the ideology of functional separation of urban uses, though we are aware of the disastrous consequences of this ideology. Current area zoning and development plans perpetuate this deficit. Housing constitutes the fabric of a city. If it cannot be combined with other economic and cultural uses, a new city cannot emerge. Viennese housing, though otherwise exemplary, also suffers from this issue. All new housing districts in Vienna have been planned and built with great commitment by all concerned parties. The system of quality management has been successful. However, all of these approaches fail to answer the question of how not only the district, but also the city of the future should flourish in everyday life.

015

From Requirements to Needs

Thomas Jocher

Affordable housing is crucially linked to requirements and needs, as the social scientist Abraham Maslow stated in his “hierarchy of needs” in 1940. Today, it may be useful to instead speak of desires and needs. Already in 1929, the architects of modernity had taken up the topic of existential needs when they placed the focus of the CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne) conference in Frankfurt on “The Minimum Dwelling”. At that time, far smaller living spaces were being designed: J.  J. P. Oud, for example, presented a design for a “micro-dwelling” in 1929 with a floor area of only 48 m² for a family with three children. In contrast, the average flat size in Germany in 2016 was 91.7 m², while the average living space per head was 46.5 m². In many other countries, particularly in the metropolises of Asia, living conditions are far more constricted. For example, SsD architecture and urbanism constructed Songpa Micro-Housing in Seoul in 2014, a building with clustered flats, where each person is allocated a mere 10 m². Thanks to built-in wall cabinets and foldable beds, the dwelling area could be reduced to a large extent. Each unit contains a bathroom and a small cooking area, while communal areas provide spatial compensation. In large Western cities, a reduction in dwelling area is certainly also worth considering. The important realisation that separate areas don’t always have to be earmarked for every individual function, such as sleeping, cooking, dining, and working, represents an important approach that should

From Requirements to Needs

016 urgently be followed as we have become more aware of finite resources. After all, most spaces are only used at certain times of the day. Are our buildings too expensive? In the on-going discussion in Germany,it is often claimed that construction has become too expensive. It is claimed that the Dutch are able to build for as little as 1,000 Euro/m2. However, what costs are we actually talking about? The construction costs, the costs for the dwelling area, or the floor space? Or are we exclusively talking about the building costs? Is standard turnkey construction meant or customised finishes? Gross or net costs? The question of costs and how one calculates them is a complex one. For this reason, the federal ministry responsible for building in Berlin established a commission for reducing construction costs in 2014, and made a report in late 2015. It used the consumer price index of the previous 15 years as a benchmark, which was seen to have risen by 26 % during this period. Construction costs rose by 28 % in the same period, costs rising by only 2 %, which is relatively low. The import­ ant cost group 300, “Building—Building Construction,” for which architects are primarily responsible lay even lower, at 26 %. The increase was more pronounced in the cost group 400, “Building—Building Installations,” which stood at 46 %. Architects have also played a part in this increase. Increasingly, buildings with large building depths are being designed, resulting in internal spaces and staircases which require elaborate artificial conditioning. Moreover, thin external walls with several highly specialised layers (thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire protection) are more expensive than massive, simple, monolithic components, excluding ecological costs.

Songpa Micro-Housing, Seoul, 2014 SsD architecture and urbanism

Affordable housing Affordable housing is a highly topical demand both currently and historically. The smaller the household income, the higher the average percentage share of rental costs. Low earners also face difficulties when buying property: in Germany, most public funding instruments for property acquisition are not geared to people with low incomes, as they are unable to raise the required equity for property acquisition. This issue ought to be approached entirely differently. For example, the transition from object funding (funding of building construction) to subject funding (funding of citizens) in the late 1980s needs to be questioned, since this resulted in handing over important urban planning and social control mechanisms. Subject funding favours social segregation rather than social mixing and low-income families are forced to city outskirts, where land prices are cheaper. Availability of land In order to provide affordable housing, it would be necessary to change urban land policy, since the actual cost driver for housing is not the high building standards, but the price

Thomas Jocher

Residential building Nemausus, Nîmes, 1987 Ateliers Jean Nouvel

017 of land. The largest share of construction costs is caused by the extremely high land prices in cities, displaying typical market behaviour: shortage leads to price increases. To contain the rise in land prices, a foresighted land ­reservation policy would be required. A commendable ex­ ample is the city of Ulm, where this reservation policy has been practiced for over a century, and where the city itself controls the development and free-space reservation of its land areas. Moreover, it can take advantage of the appreciation of value created by the urban planning law. This benefits everybody. Another possibility is not to sell urban plots to the highest bidder, but rather to allocate them as part of hereditary building rights. Architects cannot change land policy. What contribution, though, can architecture make to create affordable housing? From skilled crafts and trades to industrialisation When thinking about possibilities for reducing construction costs, it is worthwhile to look to the past to avoid repeating previous mistakes, or to demonstrate that specific approaches are being overestimated. Such an aspect is undoubtedly the better use of industrialisation. While it was possible to considerably lower costs in vehicle construction, the opposite is true for housing. One early example of an industrialised approach in housing is the settlement in Praunheim (1926–1929) in Frankfurt by Ernst May and others. Here, serially manufactured components were employed, though the use of too many different elements ultimately resulted in the loss of the potential advantages. Another important example of social housing is Nemausus, an ensemble in the city of Nîmes in southern France designed by Jean Nouvel in 1987. It shows that far more consistent approaches are possible—industrial products were indeed employed here. However, it was not possible for the residents to individually adapt the architecture in any way; the architect was very careful to ensure that his architecture remained unchanged. This inflexibility is a disadvantage. Another approach, which has subsequently become prototypical, was adopted by the French architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal. They redesigned the previously renovated residential tower Tour Bois le Prêtre in Paris in 2011 without necessitating the vacation of the building during the renovation period. Their simple solution consisted of improving the housing quality of the existing building with an abundance of light, and equipping the outdoor area with glazed elements. This project shows that serialisation can also be useful for the purpose of renovation if the respective element is used in large numbers. From the bespoke item to the series Architects don’t need to be apologetic about repeatedly using the same components—when doing so, the results are far from predetermined. Well-known examples include the Levittown, a suburban housing estate comprising prefabricated single-family houses in the U.  S. state of New York, and the housing estate of Törten in Dessau by Walter

From Requirements to Needs

Residential tower Tour Bois le Prêtre, Paris, 2011 Frédéric Druot, Lacaton & Vassal

Residential towers Tours Aillaud, Nanterre, 1977 Emile Aillaud

018 Gropius from 1928. Equally interesting is Le Corbusier’s strategy developed for the Unité d’habitation, which was realised multiple times: The basic principle of the types of flat and the circulation remains the same, but in every location, the buildings were given a newly developed facade, respectively. Each of the five planned Unité schemes (the one designed for Strasbourg was the only one not realised) is different from the other. In France, further examples can be found that illustrate the various uses of serialisation in architecture. Not all of these models provided suitable solutions—neither the demonstrative statement of the Grand Nation, Les Arcades du Lac designed by Ricardo Bofill for Paris, nor the buildings of Emile Aillaud in Nanterre, or Marne-La-Vallée from 1977, where the architect attempted to soften the huge, monolithic structures with large-scale painting and vari­ ations in the window formats. The model of Habitat 67 built in Montreal by Moshe Safdie in 1967 quickly loses its appeal when viewed from the rear side. A weakness is the elaborate circulation required by this typological pattern comprising individual spatial cells. Moreover, several hopeful experiments have unfortunately failed. This is exemplified by Richard Dietrich and Bernd Steigerwald’s meta-city in Wulfen, which was viewed optimistically in architectural circles but was demolished in 1987 after only twelve years. By contrast, the Olympic Village in Munich may be cited as a positive example. In the 1960s, Günther Eckert and Werner Wirsing had planned 800 mass-produced houses, which were replaced in 2009 by similar new buildings designed by bogevischs buero. In 2010, the office also renovated the students’ tower. Incidentally, the Olympic Village in Munich is a pertinent example for the juxtaposition of a high-density low-rise building and a residential tower that accommodates almost the same number of students. The individual and the community The relationship between the individual and society is clearly a vitally important issue for the future of housing. An important question concerns the resident of the future: for whom are we building and who will the resident of the future be? How will a flat be used? Will it predominantly be used by the elderly or people from various cultural backgrounds, by people with low incomes, or people with dis­ abilities? Modes of dwelling and living must be fundamentally reconsidered from the “1/2/3/4 tradition” of the mid-­­twentieth century (i. e. 1 man, 1 woman, 2 children, 3 rooms, and 4 wheels). Alongside communal living, communal building must also be mentioned. Here, too, costs can be saved, often involving a laborious process. In this model, a joint building venture can, at full risk, save the costs for risk and profit, amounting to between 10 and 20 %, as would usually be estimated by an investor. However, joint building ventures, as a rule, involve people who would be eligible to obtain a bank loan. This

Thomas Jocher

Habitat 67, Montreal, 1967 Moshe Safdie

Olympic Village, Munich, 1972 / 2010 Günther Eckert, Werner Wirsing / bogevischs buero

019 model is therefore better suited to people with mid-level household incomes, rather than for those with low incomes. In order to offer a solution for the latter group, one must look at the ever-growing individual land consumption, and not only consider the “expanding house” but also the “shrinking house”. How is it possible to use spaces more efficiently, to accommodate a greater number of people in the same floor area than was previously the case? Such an attempt should consider the personal satisfaction and social security of the residents by including a personal, undisturbed, private area, preferably with a bathroom and a cooking area of its own, in the planning process from the onset. What matters is how these small private areas are spatially linked to the large communal spaces.The Hunziker Areal (see p. 035) and the housing complex Zwicky-Süd (see p. 043), both located in Zurich, illustrate how clustered or satellite housing on a small area and with common spaces could be envisaged. Responsible building means inclusion of reserves that would enable changes, even if this leads to a slight increase in costs—especially as we never know what the future holds; however, we are building now in the twenty-first century!

021

Approaches and Trends in ­Prefabricated Housing

Roland Pawlitschko

Large cities such as Berlin, Munich, or Vienna are c­ urrently registering an influx of around 30,000 people every year. In light of the already scarce and increasingly expensive housing, it is clear that the demand for new flats will continue to grow in future. This necessitates the development of intelligent strategies for residential buildings, which simultaneously take into account urban planning-related, social, ecological, and economic aspects. Regardless of whether it’s about re-densification within existing buildings and neighbourhoods, or about new buildings in urban extension areas, prefabricated concrete and timber components for supporting structures and building envelopes significantly contribute towards allowing residential buildings to be realised efficiently in terms of time, materials, and costs, as well as creating high levels of diversity and high quality execution. This promises to be the most effective way to provide affordable housing for the steadily growing number of people living in poverty or at risk of poverty. Prefabrication is not a recent phenomenon. It dates back several thousands of years, right up to the first building bricks and uniformly pre-assembled components, such as for nomadic tents. What is comparatively new though, is the rationalisation of construction processes and the serial production of large, load-bearing building components, which—​ since the introduction of the assembly line in the automotive industry—are also becoming increasingly widespread in the construction industry. Modernist architects such as Walter Gropius, viewed the prefabrication of wall and ceiling

Approaches and ­Trends in ­P refabricated Housing

022 elements, as well as complete units of space, as being the future of the building sector—and they were proven right. In contrast to the period a century ago, however, today there are far fewer dogmatic and significantly more sophisticated methods of prefabrication. Serial building and prefabrication in housing Mass-produced serial products have long since shaped our everyday lives. Such products enjoy widespread acceptance and are perceived as status-symbols and customised commodities, as is the case with smartphones, fashion items, and vehicles, for example. Residential buildings made of prefabricated components, however, are often held in low esteem. On the one hand, prefabricated construction is still associated with temporary buildings for emergency shelters bringing to mind the shortcomings of many prefabricated concrete buildings of the 1970s. On the other hand, there is the widespread and outdated belief, especially in housing construction, that solid buildings must be constructed manu­ally, brick by brick. What is, however, disregarded in this context is the great extent to which craftsmanship has also developed in the era of digitisation and automated construction processes. Prefabricated components have long since been used as a matter of course in all parts of buildings for all uses, including reinforced steel components of all sizes and shapes, as well as timber walls and ceilings, produced in solid or frame construction. In doing so, new digital tools and CNCcontrolled machines—particularly in timber construction— allow for economic serial or individual production, as has been common in other areas of the construction industry for years, as in the case of windows, facade elements, and building services components. The construction of residential units is particularly suited for prefabrication due to the relatively small component dimensions and spans, as well as the serial character of the mostly uniform, aligned flats. The relocation of construction processes from the building site to a weatherproof environment equipped with the necessary tools and machines, has significant advantages in terms of time and cost-efficiency as well as permitting solutions which—due to their complexity and quality requirements—would not be possible without the use of prefabrication in the first place. Modular construction Modular construction constitutes a special type of prefabrication where not only individual elements, but entire spatial units are manufactured and transported to the building site. This building method is especially suited for construction projects where residential units are repeated identically, such as in hotels, hostels, or student residences. Thanks to the modules, which are usually produced complete with furniture, bathrooms, windows, doors, and potentially even facades, interfaces are reduced to a minimum. In doing so, module manufacturers are ideally responsible for the modules as well as the planning and execution of related trades.

Roland Pawlitschko

023 In this way, they are able to maintain an overview, while subcontractors are optimally integrated into the work processes. This results in fewer deficiencies, shorter construction periods, and lower costs. Independent of the type of building material, modules are usually directly stacked on top of one another. In the student hostel Woodie in Hamburg (see p. 127), Sauerbruch Hutton architects, together with Kaufmann Bausysteme, conceived a clear, seven-storey building structure above a “concrete ­table”, with a total of 371 prefabricated wooden modules. A similar solution is applied in the student hostel by dataAE and H Arquitectes in Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain (see p. 113), where spatial modules approximately 40 m² in size made of concrete were employed. In the nine-­storey residential tower Carmel Place in New York, nArchitects planned prefabricated spatial modules in a steel frame construction, which was welded with additional steel profiles on site. The building, with its 55 “micro-apartments”, ranging in size from 24 to 33 m², offers singles a comfortable home, as well as numerous community facilities in an extremely strained housing market.

Carmel Place (My Micro NY), New York, 2016 nArchitects (all photos p. 22 and 23)

Economic efficiency and quality of execution As a rule, economic advantages are not created by prefabrication alone, but especially by the production of series comprising identical or similar modules or elements. In doing so, the cost-efficiency achievable in this manner is not exclusively based on optimised production conditions. Prefabrication allows for reduced assembly times on the building site, optimised building site facilities, shorter utilisation periods for cranes, construction machines, and scaffoldings, but also less of a burden on the residential environment due to noise, dust, and delivery traffic. These advantages need to be offset by the respective costs for the transport and logistics of the prefabricated parts: the more complex the components are, the longer the routes could be as a rule, since the costs here are more easily compensated than in the case of standard components. To allow prefabricated components to be installed on a building site in an accurate and ideally timely manner, without interim storage, extremely precise plans must be drawn up, which contain information for the interfaces with other trades, in particular. This is linked to a precise overview of the construction progress and the consideration of the fact that dimensional tolerances are larger on the building site than in components produced under workshop conditions. This especially applies to timber building components, which can be produced with millimetre precision, while adjacent, in-situ concrete components can deviate from the planned dimension by as much as two centimetres. In principle, all components prefabricated under workshop conditions permit a quality of execution and dimensional accuracy which is not attainable using manual labour on site. Often, these qualities alone speak in favour of prefabrication. Moreover, a level of material and energy efficiency can be attained that is nigh impossible on building sites due to inadequate technical possibilities.

Approaches and ­Trends in ­P refabricated Housing

024 Prefabrication using concrete components Precast concrete components have long since been common in housing construction, for example in the form of flights of stairs, ceiling elements, or balcony slabs. The key advantages lie in greater precision and quality of execution, as well as in time savings on the building site, for instance on account of hardened building components, pre-installed empty conduits, and openings for installations, doors, and windows. Another advantage is the good structural and sound-insulating qualities of concrete, as well as its ability to store heat. When it comes to walls, solid single-leaf walls, double walls, and core-insulated construction assemblies are generally used. While the former often serve as individually designed facade claddings, double walls consist of two reinforced concrete slabs connected by spacers, which are poured on site using in-situ concrete. Core-insulated sandwich panels have an inner bearing layer and an outer facing layer. These wall elements are produced in the manufacturing plant and delivered ready-to-install. The maximum elem­ent sizes are approximately 4 × 10 metres, on account of cost-effective transport possibilities and the standardised dimensions of formwork tables. Regarding horizontal concrete elements, semi-prefabricated ceilings up to three metres in width are the most widely used. They consist of thin prefabricated floor slabs, which are complemented by in-situ concrete. While cost-­ effective solutions had previously only been possible by using identical building components, today automated, computer-controlled manufacturing plants, as well as casting moulds produced by CNC mills allow for far greater diversity. Uniform building components based on variations of a basic form are ultimately still more cost-effective than a large number of bespoke parts. Prefabrication using wooden components The prefabrication of wooden components has a centuries-­ old tradition and was already applied in half-timbered ­houses and roof trusses, whose timber profiles were prepared for installation off site. Whether in the form of beams, boards, or solid timber components, wood plays an important role today, especially as new woodworking technologies and more efficient gluing methods allow for new, greater load-bearing strength, longer spans, and products with more complex shapes. Another advantage is the fact that timber components and composites consist of a renewable resource, which stores carbon dioxide, has highly favourable building physics-related characteristics, is light, and can also contribute to a comfortable living atmosphere. In prefabricated timber construction, there are two primary constructional variants: the timber frame construction and the solid timber construction, using cross-laminated timber components. Acton Ostry Architects and Hermann Kaufmann Architekten used a combination of cross-lamin­ ated timber ceilings and glue-laminated timber columns, force-locked to form a frame construction with the aid of

Roland Pawlitschko

Student hostel, Vancouver, 2017 Acton Ostry Architects (all illustrations p. 24 and 25)

025 standardised steel plug-in connectors, in a student hostel in Vancouver, which—at 18 stories—is one of the tallest timber buildings in the world. The prefabricated components allowed for very simple and quick assembly around two concrete cores, so that the overall construction time of the load-bearing timber structure was a mere nine weeks. All timber components were subsequently clad in gypsum plasterboard to permit slightly smaller timber cross-sections, but also to simplify renovation work arising due to the frequent change of tenants. The decision against visible timber surfaces is not a sign of conceptual inconsistency, but rather an indication that wood as a building material is increasingly being used and is in no way inferior to concrete in terms of both its load-bearing capacity and price. This is also evident in the three Punkthaus (central-circulation-core building) prototypes, which LIN Architekten Urbanisten developed for the revitalisation of housing estates of post-war modernism in Bremen within the framework of the competition “ungewöhnlich Wohnen” (unusual living) entitled Bremer Punkt. The four-storey residential buildings include subsidised flats, a collaborative housing project with an arcade made of precast concrete parts, prefabricated timber-frame walls, and in-situ concrete floor slabs. Thus, the timber components are designed as simply as possible, so that unspecialised regional timber construction companies would also be able to manufacture them. This reduced production costs and dispensed with the need for long-distance transport routes, such as from the manufacturing plants of market-leading timber construction companies in southern Germany or Austria. In the following construction phase, the buildings, conceived as a modular system, will allow for new flexible floor plan typologies, while using wood-concrete composite floor slabs, rather than in-situ concrete slabs. Wood-concrete composite ceilings combine the positive qualities of both building materials and are available as semi-­ prefabricated ceilings or as fully prefabricated components. The former arrive at the building site as solid wooden ceilings with milled birdsmouth joints. Here, the lower wooden layer serves as a tensile zone, on which the reinforcement is mounted first, and the compression zone is subsequently poured using in-situ concrete. In contrast, the fully pre­ fabricated components only need to be assembled and the joints sealed with concrete. Changed planning processes Though prefabricated components can be produced relatively easily and quickly, they nevertheless require very careful preliminary planning. For architects, this inevitably means shifting forward planning work from later work phases to the earlier design phase. This assumes great importance in timber construction, in particular, since conduits, as well as wall and ceiling openings—in contrast to plastered solid components—cannot easily be added retrospectively. An increase in the extent of prefabrication principally also leads to a rise in the degree of complexity and so the

Approaches and ­Trends in ­P refabricated Housing

026 know-how of timber construction specialists is required already during the design phase. If this collaboration doesn’t take place, considerable re-planning often needs to be managed during the phases of execution on account of company-­specific product characteristics, leading to higher costs and longer planning periods. Standardised timber construction and system solutions can help, for example, as is explained on the internet platform dataholz.eu. Here, component solutions are available to planners, which are certified for use in Germany by independent testing authorities with respect to their structures and materiality. This platform was created by Hermann Kaufmann of the Chair of Architectural Design and Timber Construction and Stefan Winter of the Chair of Timber Structures and Building Construction of the Technical University of Munich. The Chair of Hermann Kaufmann also participated in the three-year research project leanWood, which universities, timber construction companies, and architects from Germany, France, Finland, and Switzerland completed at the end of 2017. The goal of the project was “the development of new organisation and process models for prefabricated timber construction, against the background of innovative planning processes and cooperation models.” On the one hand, leanWood offers proposals for solutions on how planners can handle the increased requirements of prefabrication as part of the regulation on fees and contracts; on the other, interfaces and responsibilities between planning partners are also clarified. A perspective on automated production A perspective on future possibilities for planning and implementation processes in both timber and concrete construction is provided by the DFAB House, an ETH Zurich research project on planning a residential building, which is not only being digitally designed and planned, but also built using digital processes. In doing so, eight doctoral theses are examining 3-D printing procedures for concrete formwork as well as robotics systems, amongst others, which can autonomously produce a reinforced, formwork-free concrete wall or spatially prefabricated timber components. Like at leanWood, the focus here is also how the numerous planning partners and their different computer-­based design and production systems can be optimally interconnected. The construction of the DFAB House was certainly not a prototype for cost-efficient building. Nevertheless, the research project provides clues with regard to the issue of prefabrication, which is by no means only about the century-­old optimisation of large building components, but entirely new planning and production methods and possibilities. These are part of a (digitalised) construction process which corresponds to our living environment today and which will, in the long term and on a large scale, lead to high-quality, sustainable, as well as cost-efficient buildings using automated procedures.

Roland Pawlitschko

DFAB House on the Nest building of Empa, Duebendorf near Zurich (all illustrations p. 26 and 27, project team p. 190)

027

029

Planning-Related Aspects for ­Cost-Efficient Building

Benedikt Hartl

Affordable housing in urban areas is one of the great social issues of the twenty-first century. In this context, houses, buildings, and cities should not only to be perceived as functional elements, but also as representing ideas of human coexistence, constructing social relationships, and forming social interactions and communities. A number of factors are responsible for expensive housing. In large cities, one of the main reasons is the strong increase in real estate prices, which can even exceed the actual construction costs. Here, low supply is coupled with a high demand. Moreover, property—like housing—serves as capital investment and to maximise profits for investors. Supply and demand also determine the price of building construction and the financing costs. Low interest rates only appear to lower construction costs, since low returns in the capital market lead to an increased demand for real estate. Furthermore, technical requirements, as well as inter­ national, European, and national norms, laws, regulations, and standards can raise costs. Moreover, the additional building costs, constituting up to 16 % of the purchase price in Germany, inflate purchase prices. Architecture cannot directly influence these factors. In the long run, political and social reassessment is necessary in order to respond to the challenges of a trans­forming society, with its demographic changes, climate change, and the integration of migrants. The projects showcased in this book demonstrate which planning-related and technical possibilities can successfully lead to more cost-efficient building.

030

Planning-Related Aspects for Cost-Efficient Building

Building form The largest potential for savings lies in the design and construction decisions, including on building cubage and floor plan design. A compact building form can be used to reduce facade areas, which on average make up 20–30 % of the total construction costs, and lower energy and heating costs. The area/volume ratio (A/V) and the useable floor space/gross floor area ratio (UFS/GFA) are definitive measures for cost-­ efficient building. Moreover, floor plan concepts ought to be developed that minimise circulation areas, which can constitute up to 20 % of the floor space in residential buildings.

a c

c b

b a

d

d

bb

Floor plans, Section Scale 1:250

Single-family house in Tokyo, 1996 F.O.B.A.

Construction Structural work consumes almost half of the total construction costs, offering good possibilities for cost savings. Early decisions on load-bearing systems or directions of span significantly influence costs. A straightforward and reduced load-­bearing structure usually also results in a compact building form. Therefore, the architect is advised to work in close collaboration with specialist planners on the development of the load-bearing structure. Generally speaking, clear constructional principles are advantageous: a sensible planning grid for frame construction, walls aligned above each other, the avoidance of projections, as well as optimisation with respect to the running of electric cables. Housing standards Questioning task definitions offers enormous potential. The architect can respond to unnecessary or costly desires for amenities by the client, question housing standards, and draw up cost-efficient alternatives during basic evaluation, prior to commencing with the actual design. Hence, the objective is not only to satisfy the desires of the client, but also to achieve a result which goes beyond a mere implementation of requirements. For example, due to a lack of land in Tokyo, FOBA developed a radically minimised house without a kitchen and a bathroom. These functions are relocated to the communal urban space by using public bathhouses to wash and neighbouring shops and restaurants for food supply. Creative interpretation of building regulations Building regulations contain several cost-pushing articles. The parking space regulation, for instance, can be a significant cost factor, leading to the construction of expensive underground car parks in large cities. By offering car­ sharing, a cooperative society in Munich was able to reduce its regulatory commitments, and hence the costs for parking spaces. Moreover, costs were cut by dispensing with barrier-­free bathrooms on the upper floors and increasing sound insulation and fire brigade access. Official building restrictions can allow unforeseen spatial opportunities, for example the “half houses” in Iquique (Chile) apply a law for funding social housing. Since it only applies to house sizes of up to 40 m², the residents have access to the fittings of the other half.

Benedikt Hartl

031 Low-tech With a share of 20–30 % of the total building costs, building services play an increasingly larger role, also due to energy-­ related guidelines. Costs can be saved if the architect and the building services technician work closely together from the onset in the design phase. Well-planned and short installation conduits as well as the bundling of wet zones are important. Built-in technology, as opposed to easily accessible installations, complicates later maintenance. Due to regulations pertaining to fire safety, soundproofing, and thermal insulation, highly complex components with a heteroge­ neous design are created. Here, the application of embodied energy and the compounded recyclability of these systems must be considered.

Housing estate in Iquique, 2004 Elemental (above and below)

Flexibility Social and demographic change requires flexible spatial structures. Therefore, in the long run it is cost-efficient to avoid high degrees of spatial specialisation and to design floor plans in a flexible manner by separating the structure from the completion of the interior. Open plan buildings with a multifunctional structure thus have a high stable ­value, solely on account of their conversion potential. Materiality To ensure cost-efficient and sustainable construction methods, regional and/or local building materials with low transport costs and locally available process-related know-how to be used. Simple, homogeneous use of materials, with a consideration of the durability and recyclability, should be taken into account. With careful detailing, standardised industrial products can be transformed into interesting new compositions. Simplification Simplifying architecture in spite of complex demands requires precise proportioning and a high degree of developmental effort. Repeated details and connection points can support the architectural concept and avoid complicated material use and construction techniques. Prefabrication The advantage of prefabrication lies in its fast and simple as­ sembly, the reduction of work time and construction period as a whole, resulting in higher precision in execution. Since labour costs comprise approximately 45 % of construction costs in highly developed industrialised countries, it is useful to minimise them with the aid of standardised industrial or semi-finished products. However, savings only accrue at high production numbers, and therefore, the appropriateness of this construction method must be considered for each individual project (see student hostel Woodie, p. 127). Fit-out With a share of approx. 20 % of total construction costs, fitouts particularly provide the possibility for savings in labour

Planning-Related Aspects for Cost-Efficient Building

032 costs. Tenants in the Netherlands, for example, receive a refined building shell, whose fit-out they manage themselves. Architects are also adopting this strategy for projects in Berlin in the meanwhile. Cost-efficient construction should be viewed across the entire life cycle of a building. On the one hand, the construction costs per square metre are important, in order to comparatively evaluate individual building measures; on the other, however, sustainability, durability of construction, and architectural quality contribute towards making a building project profitable and economically efficient in the long run. It is important to distinguish between “cheap”, profit-maxi­ mising investment thinking and “cost-efficient”, sustainable strategies. Here, cooperative building projects lead the way as pioneering prototypes: common property instead of private property, and sharing instead of ownership can reduce housing costs far more efficiently than any of the constructional strategies introduced here.

Residential building A52, Berlin, 2005 Roedig.schop Architekten (above and below)

Co operative 033

035 Mehr als Wohnen Cooperative Housing, Z ­ urich, CH Duplex ­Architekten, pool ­Architekten,­ 043 Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH Schneider Studer Primas

035

Cooperative

Duplex Architekten, pool Architekten

Mehr als Wohnen Cooperative Housing, Zurich, CH

Mehr als Wohnen Cooperative Housing, ­Zurich, CH

036 

Nestled between modern office towers, post-war residential buildings, and a waste incineration plant, the largest cooperative housing complex yet in Zurich has been built in the north-eastern part of the city. The client was a coalition of over 50 Zurich-based cooperative associ­ ations named “mehr als wohnen” (more than dwelling), which was formed in 2007. The goal was not to simply construct yet another housing estate on the outskirts of the city, but to create a full-fledged, mixed-use urban quarter for 1,300 people. Instead of the usual large-scale formations comprising rows or blocks, the urban planning concept, developed by the offices Futurafrosch and Duplex as part of a competition, envisages a cluster of 13 smaller free-standing buildings. Closely spaced, they form a system of paths, squares, and open areas with a strong urban character. Five different architectural offices designed the individual buildings. The participating architects jointly drew up a design-related set of guidelines, which provided rough stipulations for the facade structure, but also defined the distribution of functions on the ground floor and the design of the building structures. Hence, the ground floors had to completely utilise the envisaged building footprints; recesses and setbacks were only permitted above, while courtyards were not allowed. The designers were thus confronted with the task of intelligently utilising the substantial building depth of up to 32 metres. In many buildings, spacious, top-lit staircases were constructed, while others were structured using setbacks. Roof terraces were also eschewed in favour of enlivening the ground floor areas. With regard to the flats supplied, the cooperative sought a compromise between experimental diversity and risk minimisation. A total of 370 flats with 160 different floor plans were created on the site—all for rental. The cooperative broke new ground, however, with experimental forms of housing in a large-scale format. This includes nine shared maisonette flats as well as 14 clustered or satellite flats, of which eleven are found in Haus A (Building A) by Duplex Architekten. The clustered flats, with a floor area of 320 to 400 m², are designed with a combination of shared flats and standard flats. Small private spheres of life are grouped around a spacious common area. Since every unit doesn’t require the full provision of infrastructure and circulation areas, valuable space—and hence costs—can be saved, while retreating to the private sphere is always possible; the private clusters, comprising one to two rooms, each have their own bathroom and a small kitchenette. Thanks to a lively arrangement of the units within the overriding formation, differentiated lounge areas, narrow lanes, and spacious recesses are created. Moreover, the depth of the building structure allows for an overlap of uses in the stairwell, fulfilling an access function and serving as a communal meeting place at the same time. Another typological experiment is located in Haus G (Building G), a rectilinear concrete monolith by pool

Architekten, positioned at the central square of the quarter. Since there is no possibility for additional lighting from the courtyard, the living areas make use of the floor plan depths. Partly double-storey living areas are designed in L-shapes, structuring the floor plans of the flats thanks to their sophisticated reciprocal arrangement. The additional ceiling height allows daylight deep into the building. While the communal living areas are arranged in the double-storey zones, the private retreats occupy the corner locations of the volume. The conceptual re-organisation of urban development and architecture results in an urban heterogeneity on the periphery. The unconventional cooperative forms of living and working embody social and ecological sustainability for future generations and are a prototype for future projects.

Year of completion:  Plot area, residential quarter:  Construction costs (total): 

2015 40,200 m² CHF 185 m.

Construction costs per m²:  approx. 3,800 CHF/m²  (average value, all 13 buildings) HAUS A (BUILDING A)—DUPLEX ARCHITEKTEN Floor area: 

6,883 m²

Housing area: 

3,937 m²

Other useable area:  Accommodation:  (10.5 or 12.5 rooms), sheltered workshop, gallery

415 m² 11 clustered flats

Construction period:  Residents: 

4 years building cooperative

HAUS G (BUILDING G)—POOL ARCHITEKTEN: Floor area: 

7,519 m²

Housing area: 

3,870 m²

Other useable area: 

742 m²

Accommodation:  30 flats (4.5 to 12 rooms,  112 to 318 m², 3 additionally rentable rooms),  roof terrace and roof pavilion with  a sauna for all residents of the plot Commercial and common spaces on the ground floor (3 studios, mobility station, common rooms, exhib­ ition space Mehr als Wohnen [More than dwelling], sound studio, violin-making studio, book-publishing house) Clear ceiling height:  2.51 m,  in the overheight part of the dwelling space 5.39 m Type of construction:  solid construction,  monolithic external walls of insulating  concrete as façade Construction period:  Residents: 

3 years building cooperative

037 

Duplex Architekten, pool Architekten

House A: North-west elevation from the central square

 ouse G: South elevation. The concrete walls are up to 80 cm thick H around the L-shaped recessed loggias.

G

A

Location map with ground floor plans, scale 1:2,500

Cooperative

I

038 

Mehr als Wohnen Cooperative Housing, ­Zurich, CH

House A, section, scale 1:600

House G, section, scale 1:600

0

5

10m

0

5

10m

A

A

House A, standard floor plan, scale 1:600

5

10m

0

5

10m

5

10m

5

10m

A

House G, plan of the third floor, scale 1:600

A

0

0 0

A A

A

A

A

5

10m

A

0

House A, ground floor plan, scale 1:600

House G, ground floor plan, scale 1:600 0

A

A

5

10m

039 

Duplex Architekten, pool Architekten

Building A Section roof / facade Scale 1:20 a 100 mm extensive green roof 20 mm water reservoir and ­drainage layer a 10 mm protective fleece EPDM waterproof membrane 240 mm mineral wool i­ nsulation Vapour check a reinforced concrete roof ≥ 200 mm slab laid to falls a

b Balcony door: Timber/aluminium frame Triple insulated glazing c Aluminium folding shutters 2 × 2-leaf, aluminium profile s ­ ubstructure r 45/30/2 d 130 mm precast white concrete ­balcony, surface laid to falls e 10 mm lime cement plaster skim (­finish coat) 5 mm mesh reinforcement 25 mm lime cement lightweight ­plaster (base coat) 490 mm brickwork masonry with

­ erlite insulation filling; p l = 0,08 W/mK (ground – 2nd floor) / 0,07 W/mK (3rd –6th floor) 10 mm internal plaster f Parquet flooring (private areas) / hard concrete (communal ­areas / stairwell) 80 mm cement screed with ­underfloor heating 0.2 mm PE film 20 mm footfall sound a ­ bsorption 200 mm reinforced ­concrete slab g Timber board with curtain track

h 5 mm smooth lime cement plaster (finish coat) Lime cement lightweight plaster 25 mm (base coat) Lintel: 50 mm brick cladding 150 mm reinforced ­concrete 90 mm XPS insulation 420 mm reinforced concrete lintel 10 mm internal plaster i Glazed door, powder coated ­aluminium frame Insulated triple glazing

a a

f

b

c

b

c

b

c

b

c

b

c

f f

f f

d

e

g

d d

e

g

e

g

d d

g g

f f f

e b

c e

b

c

b

c

b

c

b

c

f h

f

h h

h i

h

i

i i

Cooperative

i

Mehr als Wohnen Cooperative Housing, ­Zurich, CH

040 

041 

Duplex Architekten, pool Architekten

h b Fresh air intake h c Vertical window blinds Side cord operation d Chamfer strip as drip p ­ rofile e Balcony door / window: Timber/aluminium frame h Insulated triple glazing h concrete pavers f 40 mm

Building G Section roof / facade Scale 1:20 a 100 mm extensive green roof 10 mm drainage layer 2-ply EPDM waterproof membrane a Protective fleece 200 mm a mineral wool ­insulation Vapour check 240 — 410 mm reinforced concrete roof slab, to falls

50 mm gravel g 440 mm lightweight concrete LC 8/9 h (3rd − 7th floor) / 490 mm lightweight concrete LC 12/13

a a

(ground floor − 2nd floor) External depth hydrophobing Internal mineral glaze fi ­ nish h Waterproofing of roof parapet and window ledge: cementitious ­waterproof grout, polished i 5 mm linoleum 85 mm cement screed with ­underfloor heating 0.2 mm PE film 20 mm footfall sound a ­ bsorption 240 mm reinforced concrete slab

j Glazed door Aluminium frame Triple insulating glazing k 20 mm floor finish (by tenant) 100 mm anhydrite screed 0.2 mm PE film 200 mm EPS insulation 300 mm reinforced concrete slab

h

a

a

b b e b e b b e e b e

c

d

c

d

c c

d d

c

c

f

d

f

e

f f

b

f

d

b c e

c

f

e b b b e e b e

c c c

h h

c i i

e

h h

g g

h i i

g g

h

i

g

i

g

j j

k

k k k

k

j j j

j

Cooperative

k

Cooperative

Schneider Studer Primas

043

Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH

Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH

044 

In Dübendorf, on the eastern periphery of Zurich, sandwiched between a motorway slip road and a suburban railway viaduct, on the premises of the former spinning plant Zwicky, a slice of urbanity is being developed. The site’s relatively low cost for Zurich’s standards is offset by the high levels of noise pollution: containing this noise determined the basic parameters of the building development. The use of privately owned cars is strongly discouraged as the site is well linked by public transport. For the southern part of the site, called Zwicky Süd, the Zurich-based architects Schneider Studer Primas designed an urban developmental and architectural ensemble that responds to the context, while simultaneously creating a diverse and affordable supply of housing stock. Three developers—the building and housing cooperative Kraftwerk1, two investment foundations, and an insurance company—joined forces for the housing, which was conceived to be flexible and equally suited for living and working, with a total of 280 flats and 5,900 m² of commercial space. Taking into account the industrial history of the location, the planners opted for three construction typologies: linear blocks, low halls, and the motif of the solid block. All these building typologies are suited for housing purposes but also for other uses, resulting in a robust basic structure for the required flexibility of use. Extensive calculations of the noise emission determined the pos­ itioning of the building structures. Four, seven-storey, partially permeable, curved linear blocks frame the site, shielding the interior of the development. Untreated concrete, black steel surfaces, and simple structures, such as the balcony railings, helped to reduce costs. Arcades provide access to the eight-metre-wide blocks with conventional housing units, while their ground floors are designed as a hall typology: in the southern building structure, the 4-metre-wide and 25-metre-deep maisonettes combine the privacy of a terraced house with the flexibility of urban lofts. The northern block accommodates flats, shops, a bistro, and 14 hotel rooms. The roof areas of the inserted commercial areas are linked to the residential buildings on various levels by bridges and arcades, providing protected and usable outdoor space for the residents. The so-called “balcony towers” provide an additional spatial option, which can respectively be shared by two large flats per building structure. At the centre of the site lie two buildings with central circulation cores that have 30 x 40 metre footprints. The eastern structure by the cooperative Kraftwerk1 is the most radical housing experiment yet. Alongside family-­ friendly flats at the block edges, flats extend across the entire building depth of 30 metres. The elongated floor plan is illuminated through access spaces and atriums and can also be used as workspace, studio space, or rehearsal space, for example, providing a valuable extension of living space. The attic accommodates flats and roof terraces for large shared flats with up to 14 rooms

that extend across the entire building depth. These are only partially equipped with their own bathrooms. In this context, the cooperative principle serves as an engine, and generates an identity for the district. The inter­play between the various squares, paths, and passages results in a lively urban area on the outskirts, combining communality and privacy. The three building typologies enable spatial and social diversity in the housing stock, from one-room flats to clustered flats, while simultaneously allowing for the required flexibility for possible changes in use.

Year of completion: 

2016

Site area: 

21,179 m²

Floor area: 

49,867 m²

Accommodation:    Other useable area:   

33,700 m² of flexibly useable dwelling, studio, and commercial spaces 5,900 m² of commercial space and public uses of the ground floor

Uses:  280 flats  (partly residential studios), commercial spaces Construction costs (total):  Construction costs per square metre:  Construction period:  Affordability:   Residents: 

131 m. CHF 2,627 CHF/m² 3 years

rent, monthly average approx. 20 CHF/m² partly building and housing cooperative

045 

Schneider Studer Primas

12

11 Site plan Scale 1:7,500

11 2 New Zwicky Süd housing district

1 Former Zwicky works site

11

11

3 Railway line / Viaduct 4 River Glatt 5 Motorway slip road

4 11

4 1

12

3 2 4 5

Section, floor plans Scale 1:1,250  

4 Dwelling 5 Commercial space 6 Café

1 Railway viaduct 2 River Glatt 3 Passage

14

7 Bicycle store 8 Garage 9 Refuse space

10 Community space 11 Atrium 12 Roof terrace 13 Courtyard

aa

1

3

5

a

7 9 8 2

11

11

4

a

7 3

5

9

5

4 5

11

11 6

11

7 4 11

11

10 11

7 4

4 13

11

3

8 4

10 12

Ground floor

3

12

11

Cooperative

4

Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH

046 

047 

Cooperative

Schneider Studer Primas

048 

Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH

A

8

8

2

3

2

1

3

1

3

9

9

8

2

3

1

9

Floor plans Scale 1:250

Block types

A Slab type • 3.5-room dwelling • 5.5-room dwelling

B Block type • Large shared flats in roof storey • 1-room flat • 4.5-room flat

1 Dining/Kitchen/ Living room 2 Bedroom 3 Room 4 Roof terrace

5 Glass roof to atrium 6 Terrace 7 Void 8 Access balcony 9 Balcony

049 

Schneider Studer Primas

B

9

3

1

1

2

9

2

1

3

4

99 5

11

33

11

99

Cooperative

22

050 

Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH

C

3 3

2 2

4 4

5 5

3 3

Section, floor plans Scale 1:250

Block types

C Hall type • Penthouses

1 1

1 Dining / Kitchen / Living room 2 Bedroom

3 Room 4 Terrace 5 Void

051 

Cooperative

Schneider Studer Primas

052 

Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH

Block type A Vertical section Horizontal section Scale 1:20

1 Roof construction: 110 mm layer of vegetation separating mat two-layer polymer-bitumen seal 180 mm PUR thermal insulation vapour barrier, precoating 240–390 mm reinf. conc. roof

1 1

7 7 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5

6 6

2 Wall construction: 3 mm steel sheeting 40/60 mm battens/cavity 180 mm expanded polystyrene 220 mm reinf. concrete wall

3 1.5 mm sheet-steel angle 4 3 mm sheet-steel bracket 5 Sunshading louvre blind 6 Triple glazing in wood/alum. frame: 8+4+6 mm float glass with 2 × 14 mm cavities

053 

Schneider Studer Primas

7 Floor construction: 10 mm oak parquet, matt seal 80 mm screed with underfloor ­heating polythene foil 20 mm polystyrene impact-sound insulation

b

b

110 mm lattice girder with in-situ concrete filling 60 mm precast concrete element 10 mm plaster; 0.1 mm abraded surface, not smoothed

b

9

9 8

 9 Ø 42.3/3 mm tubular galv. steel balcony balustrade, stove ­enamelled galvanised wire mesh 10 Prefabricated facade panel: 70 mm precast concrete slab 160 mm phenolic resin core ­insulation

9

8

2

Cooperative

b

20 mm EPS thermal insulation 240 mm reinf. concrete floor 8 Reinforced concrete balcony with cantilevered fixing

6

10

Floor plan and cubage 055

057 Apartment Blocks Montmartre, Paris, FR Atelier Kempe Thill, Fres ­Architectes 067 Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler 079 HipHouse, Zwolle, NL Atelier Kempe Thill

Floor plan and cubage

Atelier Kempe Thill / Fres Architectes

057

Apartment Blocks Montmartre, Paris, FR

Apartment Blocks Montmartre, Paris, FR

058 

Located on a former industrial site along the Parisian ­urban motorway, in the midst of featureless perimeter block developments from the 1960s, these housing blocks in Montmartre were designed by the architectural duo Atelier Kempe Thill, in collaboration with Fres Architectes. Inspired by Haussmann’s urban redevelopment in the nineteenth century, which gives Paris its distinctive look, a building ensemble was developed as a prototype for high-quality and yet affordable urban housing based on the model of urban villas. Systematic analysis of the housing and building regulations in France, as well as the limited budget for social housing, resulted in a concept with a compact volume. Rather than having a single, large-scale block, two 19 x 20 metre buildings connected by a planted courtyard occupy the front of the site. In this manner, urban density and openness are simultaneously achieved. The diagonal positioning of the facade of the southern wing leads to an additional opening of the block. The brief included 50 social housing flats, public use on the ground floor, and an underground car park in the basement. From the first to the fifth floor, the flats are arranged around a central circulation core, permitting free placement of spaces on the facades. A system was created for the plan layout of the units. Almost all are arranged at an oblique angle to one another and follow the same principles: the kitchen is the spatial focus extending into the living area, while the bedrooms are oriented towards the courtyard or the street. Despite the low ceiling height, the flats are bright and open, as the spaces can be connected along the transparent facade by means of sliding elements. The characteristic feature of the building is the encirc­ ling winter gardens, which, as protected outdoor spaces, serve as climate buffer, noise protection, and extension of the living area. Frameless glazed sliding doors provide views of the surroundings while maintaining privacy, and floor-to-ceiling curtains provide sun protection. The glazing lends the buildings a refined touch, underlined by the golden corrugation on the facade. In order to utilise the full height of the compact volumes, the construction was also optimised. For example, there are no elaborate supports for absorbing loads; the concrete floor slabs were left untreated and their thickness was limited to 20 centimetres. To allow for a spacious, continuous connection to the outdoor space, the corner junctions within the flats were kept free of load-bearing columns. Similarly, the corner junctions of the glazing of the winter gardens are frameless. The minimised interior construction lends an industrial charm to the buildings. This reduced construction method also allowed for large tolerances and lowered building costs. The compact design allowed for the surrounding winter gardens that provide extra living space for the residents, while remaining within the budget. By combining economic construction methods and refined materials, the architects

were able to realise their objective of getting away from the negative image of social housing and creating attractive affordable housing.

Year of completion: 

2016

Site area: 

1,450 m²

Floor area: 

5,598 m²

Clear ceiling height: 

2.50 m

Persons per hectare: 

approx. 930 persons/ha

Accommodation:  50 flats (1 to 5 rooms)  plus common room,  dental clinic, mother-child centre,  31 underground parking spaces Construction costs (total): 

€ 7.3 million

Construction costs per square metre: 

1,304 €/m²

Construction period:  Affordability:   Residents:  

2 years rent, government-funded housing low earners and social benefit recipients

059 

Atelier Kempe Thill, Fres Architectes

Section, floor plans Scale 1:750

1 Caretaker 2 Bicycle store 3 Entrance hall

4 Refuse space 5 Mother-child centre 6 Multipurpose space

7 Dental practice 8 Basement garage ­access 9 Kitchen

10 Living room 11 Bedroom 12 Garden/Courtyard

6 2

5

3

4

a

aa

10 9

9 9

8

7

10

10

2

1

9

11

a

4

3 2

12

11

10

9

2 11

9 11

10

9

9 11

11

11 10 11 9

10

10

9

Typical floor

6 2

5

3

4

a

a

4

3 2

8

7

10

10

2

1

Ground floor

10 9

9

9

11

9

12

11

10

9

2 11

9 11 9

10

11

9 11

10

11 10 11 9

10

9

Floor plan and cubage

Site plan Scale 1:4,000

Apartment Blocks Montmartre, Paris, FR

060 

061 

Floor plan and cubage

Atelier Kempe Thill, Fres Architectes

Apartment Blocks Montmartre, Paris, FR

062 

Vertical section Scale 1:20 1 40 mm bed of gravel 100 mm PET-laminated extruded polypropylene honeycomb block geotextile layer; sealing layer ca 70 mm insulation to falls 280 mm polyurethane insulation sealing layer 200 mm reinforced concrete roof 2 15 mm grey sprayed rendering 75 mm insulation sealing layer

 6 PVC flooring 2 × 18 mm larch plywood  7 Sliding door: 10 mm laminated ­safety glass  8 Double glazing: 2 × 6 mm safety glass with 16 mm cavity in anodised aluminium frame  9 Balustrade: 10 mm steel flat with Ø 14 mm steel rods 10 10/200 mm steel flat 11 Curtain: aluminium / acrylic / polyester fabric 12 24 mm GRP grating sheet stainless steel bent to shape on sealing layer

200 mm reinforced concrete wall 80 mm polyurethane insulation sealing layer 3 Precast concrete element with resin coating 4 40/50 mm anodised aluminium corrugated sheeting 25/45 mm battens; sealing layer 12 mm oriented-strand board 100/38 mm wood sections with glass-wool insulation between 300/600 mm reinf. conc. lintel 5 15 mm larch plywood

13 40/50 mm anodised aluminium corrugated sheeting 18 mm larch plywood; battens 24 mm anodised aluminium panel with 12 mm plywood + 24 mm ­insulation in aluminium frame 14 12.5 gypsum plasterboard 15 Rubber flooring 250 mm reinf. concrete floor 150 mm foamed insulation

1 1

2 2

1

2

3 3 3

4 4 4 5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7

11 11

7

11 8 8 9 9

8

910 10

12 12

10

12

13 13 13

14 14 14 15 15 15

063 

Floor plan and cubage

Atelier Kempe Thill, Fres Architectes

064 

Apartment Blocks Montmartre, Paris, FR

Vertical section, Horizontal section Scale 1:20 1 40/50 mm anodized aluminium corrugated sheeting 25/45 mm battens; sealing layer 12 mm oriented-strand board

200/50 mm wood sections with glass-wool insulation between vapour-retarding layer; post and rail structure; 100 mm insulation 2 × 12.5 mm plasterboard

2 Anodised aluminium angled sheeting; insulation 3 Sliding door: 10 mm lam. safety glass 4 Double glazing: 2 × 6 mm safety glass + 16 mm cavity in anodised aluminium frame

5 Balustrade: 10 mm steel flat with Ø 14 mm steel rods 6 40 mm bed of gravel 100 mm PET-laminated extruded polypropylene honeycomb block

6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 3 3 1

3

1

3

1

8

1

8 8 8

9 9 9 9 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

4 13 13 13 13

10

11

12

10

11

12

10

11

12

10

11

12

065 

Atelier Kempe Thill, Fres Architectes

geotextile layer; sealing layer ca 70 mm insulation to falls 280 mm polyurethane insulation sealing layer 200 mm reinf. concrete roof

7 Precast concrete element with resin coating 8 10/200 mm steel flat 9 Curtain: aluminium / acrylic / polyester fabric

12 20 mm rubber paving resin seal on 75 mm screed 300 mm reinforced concrete 13 Roller sunblind

10 Rubber flooring 250 mm reinf. concrete floor 150 mm foamed insulation 11 24 mm GRP grating polymer-concrete channel sealing layer

3 4

1

5

Floor plan and cubage

2

2

067

Floor plan and cubage

Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler

Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT

Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT

068 

Around 5,000 new flats are currently being constructed in Sonnwendviertel, a new urban quarter near the central station in Vienna’s10th district. Out of these, 400 flats form part of the Smart housing programme emerging from a developer’s competition. On the initiative of Vienna City, the idea was to offer a flexible housing concept for small, cost-efficient flats to supplement the existing supply of social housing in a variety of units. A total of 148 flats with a low-energy standard were built in the Sonnwendviertel II project, 116 of these are “Smart” flats. The inner-city building complex by Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler is situated on a busy road. The architects ­responded by designing a linear building volume, the ­so-called “housing shelf”, and two courtyard blocks flank­ing the newly created urban square. A framework of prefabricated balcony elements facing the street as a noise-reducing filter layer invites residents to make them their own and, due to the interplay of the colour fields, simultaneously serves to give the building its own identity. The arcades facing the courtyards provide access to the flats and to communal areas, such as laundry rooms, playing areas, and storage areas, which extend the available space in the form of variously formed, projecting boxes. What might seem like a random arrangement, represents a spatial and aesthetic order of its own, resulting from the functional need to avoid casting shadows onto the flat below. Going beyond the dimensions required for circulation areas, the arcades partially extend into private open spaces and informal meeting zones for the residents. A square with commercial shops on the ground floor connects the courtyard with the public zones of the street. To make this diversity of spaces possible, a reinforced concrete skeleton was developed, which transfers the loads via the external walls without the need for load-bearing supports in the living areas. The building depth results from the basic Smart 40 module (corresponding to a flat size of 40 m²), whose functional and spatially optimised floor plan forms the basis for the distribution arrangement of the Smart flats. Their small individual living area is enhanced by a sophisticated system of centrally placed communal areas. Extension modules for areas up to 55 m² or 70 m², for multi-person households, as well as connectable balcony extensions facing the street, complement the provided space. The units extend between the street and the courtyard, and depending on the design variant, can be used as offices, lofts, shared flats, single flats, or family homes. The acceptability of the large-scale volume is enhanced by social diversity. Notwithstanding the great variety in position and orientation, all the flat layouts are well conceived; the Smart flats are distributed across the entire complex. The tenants were able to participate in the planning process via a web-based platform even before the start of the construction phase, thus influencing the allocation and later the use of the communal areas.

The highly compact construction, the simple, vertically continuous load-bearing system, the use of prefabricated components with a high degree of repetition, and measures, such as restriction to three window formats resulted in cost savings for the construction of the building. At the same time, the efficient use of space, the flexible building structure, and the well-conceived Smart units provide a future-oriented dwelling model for all phases of life, while simultaneously offering high-level design and quality accommodation.

Year of completion:  Competition: 

2016 2012 (developer’s competition)

Site area: 

4,734 m²

Floor area: 

11,900 m² (fundable area)

Clear ceiling height:   Accommodation:   

2.52 m; on the ground floor 3.05 m 116 Smart flats, 32 flats, common areas, nursery school, garage, shops

Construction costs (total): 

€ 17.16 million

Construction costs per square metre:  Construction period:  Affordability:    Residents: 

1,442 €/m² 2 years

rent, funded cooperative flat with ownership option and financing contribution cooperative society

069 

Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler

Floor plan and cubage

Site plan, scale 1:2,500

070 

Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT

Floor plan variations Scale 1:400

1 Living area 2 Dining area

3 Kitchen 4 Working space

6 6 6 3 3 3 5 5 5

1 1 1 7 7 7

6 6 6 3 3 3 5 5 5

3 3 3

6 6 6

3 3 3

6 6 6

1 1 1

5 5 5

1 1 1

5 5 5

7 7 7

2 2 2

4 4 4

5 5 5

7 7 7

3 3 3

6 6 6

1 1 1

2 2 2 1 1 1

7 7 7

7 7 7

3 3 3

7 7 7

2 2 2

5 Bedroom / Room 6 Bathroom 7 Balcony

5 5 5

5 5 5

3 3 3

6 6 6 2 2 2 1 1 1

5 5 5

5 5 5

7 7 7

3 3 3

1 1 1

5 5 5

6 6 6 2 2 2

5 5 5 7 7 7

5 5 5

3 3 3 2 2 2

5 5 5 7 7 7

071 

Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler

 8 Office  9 Vestibule 10 Meeting room 11 Courtyard

18 Play woods 19 Urban space 20 Dwelling 21 Void

15 Shop 16 Services / Refuse 17 Basement garage access

12 Kindergarten/ Group space 13 Movement space 14 Winter garden

22 Access gallery 23 Laundry room 24 Bicycles 25 Prams

aa

20 22

20 22

20 25

20 20

20

20

20

20

Second floor

20 22 20

21 24

20

20

23

20

22 20

20

20

20

First floor

a

14

8 8

11

15

8

10

18

8 13 8

8

8 a

Ground floor

12

12

19

16

15

8

9

15

9

12

9

9

12

15

17

Floor plan and cubage

Section, floor plans Scale 1:1,000

Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT

072 

073 

Floor plan and cubage

Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler

Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT

074 

075 

Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler

Vertical section Scale 1:20 1 60 mm gravel; protective mat 300 mm EPS insulation two-layer seal av. 60 mm concrete to falls 240 mm reinf. concrete roof 3 mm smoothing layer 2 Sheet aluminium, coated 3 8 mm moisture-diffusing rendering 220 mm EPS thermal insulation

10 mm adhesive mortar 200 mm reinforced concrete 3 mm smoothing layer 4 250 mm precast concrete unit to falls 5 Galv. sheet-steel cable run 6 10 mm parquet; 50 mm screed polythene foil 30 mm EPS-T insulation vapour-retarding layer 60 mm polystyrene concrete 2

240 mm reinf. concrete floor 3 mm smoothing layer 7 Galv. steel bar grating 100/25 mm 8 4 mm powder-coated sheet aluminium 20 mm battens / ventilation bituminous sealing layer 19 mm OSB; 170 mm insulation vapour-retarding layer 4 mm powder-coated sheet alum.

 9 Screen-printed double glazing 10 Glass door: double glazing in aluminium frame 11 200 mm reinf. concrete slab 50 mm wood-wool multilayer sheet insulation vapour-retarding layer 240–450 mm ventilated cavity 4 mm aluminium sheeting 12 150/200 mm steel g-beam

2 1 1

4 4

5 5

3 3

6

7 7

8 8

10

12

9

12

9

10

11 11

Floor plan and cubage

6

Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT

076 

Vertical section Scale 1:20

2 1 mm standing-seam alum. roof separating layer; 20 mm boarding 70 mm battens/ventilated cavity windproof layer; 24 mm boarding 160 mm mineral-wool insulation between softwood rafters vapour barrier 240 mm reinf. concrete roof 3 mm smoothing layer

1 60 mm gravel; protective mat 300 mm EPS insulation two-layer seal av. 60 mm concrete to falls 240 mm reinf. concrete roof 3 mm smoothing layer

3 8 mm moisture-diffusing rendering; 220 mm EPS insulation 10 mm adhesive mortar 200 mm reinforced concrete 3 mm smoothing layer

1 1

2 2

5 5

4 4

10 10

3 3

5 8

5

8

10

9

10

9

6

7

6

7

077 

4 10 mm parquet 50 mm screed; polythene foil 30 mm EPS-T insulation vapour-retarding layer 60 mm polystyrene concrete 240 mm reinf. concrete floor 3 mm smoothing layer

5 Alum./softwood casement door with triple glazing: 3 × 6 mm toughened glass + 12 mm cavities 6 250/90 mm alum. channel liquid seal 200 mm prec. conc. balcony 7 Profiled alum. sheeting

8 10 mm HPL slab/tubular galv. steel lattice 100/25 mm 15/20 mm steel RHS 80/80 mm steel T-section 40/60 mm steel RHS 9 1 mm standing-seam alum. roof separating layer; 24 mm boarding

45 mm battens / rear-ventilation foil underlayer 120–300 mm mineral-wool insulation; vapour barrier 160 mm reinf. concrete slab 3 mm smoothing layer 10 300/300 mm prec. conc. element

Floor plan and cubage

Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler

Floor plan and cubage

Atelier Kempe Thill

079

HipHouse, Zwolle, NL

HipHouse, Zwolle, NL

080 

The residential building in Zwolle represents an economic and aesthetically attractive alternative to the building typology most prevalent for social housing in the Netherlands, namely the arcaded access building. Owing to a careful revision, it was possible to construct a prototypical residential building within the set budget, while offering generous spaces. The form of the multistorey Punkthaus building with its central stairwell allows for a high degree of compactness, thus reducing the facade surface area. This resulted in cost savings, freeing budget for high-quality materials. The compact building structure is also a prerequisite for a good energy balance and cost-efficiency and is an ideal in terms of building footprint and land usage per person, while intelligent floor plans and a rational construction method, including well-conceived details, offer scope for a higher spatial quality at a fixed budget. Each of the eight dwelling units per floor are arranged around a central core with a twin staircase and lift within the deep 23 x 32 metre building structure. The plan layout is designed to create a balanced mix between student flats and social housing units. The larger, three and fourroom social housing units occupy the spatially more inter­esting corner location, oriented in two directions. The smaller student flats are located between the corner flats in the east and west, optimising daylight for all flats. Both student and social housing units are given the same treatment when it comes to the flats’ specifications. The circulation zones are minimised in the bright, open spaces. This optimising of available space makes the units appear larger than they are. Instead of opting for commercial spaces or parking spaces on the ground floor, residential units are also accommodated here. Thanks to the clever arrangement of the 64 dwelling units in the Punkthaus, there was the option of including a central double-volume space in a cost-neutral manner. A five-metre-high entrance hall leads to the heart of the 26-metre-high building with a skylight. The unexpected size and brightness of this atrium, which serves as a communal meeting place for the residents, deliberately contrasts with the compactness of the volume. To save costs, the architects carefully designed the stairwell structure. Acoustic machine-applied plaster refines the ceilings, while the walls are simply smoothly plastered, the railings are galvanised, and basic industrial light fittings provide cost-efficient lighting. To balance the spatial compactness, the building was not clad in brick, as is common in the Netherlands, but was glazed throughout. Floor-to-ceiling panes made of high-quality sun-protection glass, held by anodised aluminium profiles, result in a building skin that is reflective or transparent, depending on the angle of view. It is interesting to note that there are no loggias or balconies, no projections and offsets, and there are no external sun protection devices. Only the corner flats have winter gardens that open up behind the glazed sliding elements.

Thanks to the extensive glazing, the flats enjoy panoramic views, bringing the natural surroundings, daylight, and the seasons into the interior. This effect is enhanced by opening the large sliding doors, transforming the rooms into airy terraces, and thus compensating for the large depth of the units. The inevitable impact of the resi­ dents’ furniture and plants pleasantly softens the rigidity of the architecture of the glazed building envelope.

Year of completion: 

2009

Site area: 

2,500 m²

Floor area: 

6,399 m²

Clear ceiling height: 

2.60 m

Persons per hectare: 

approx. 200

Accommodation:  

64 dwelling units: student flats (50 m²) and social housing flats (95 to 115 m²)

Construction costs (total):  Construction costs per m²:  Construction period: 

€ 5.45 million 851 €/m² 2 years

Affordability:  rent, (monthly from approx. 6.60 €/m²  onwards), government-funded housing Residents:  

50 % students, 50 % low earners and social benefit recipients

081 

Atelier Kempe Thill

Site plan Scale 1:2,000

Sections, floor plans Scale 1:500

1 Entrance 2 Atrium 3 Kitchen

4 Living room 5 Bedroom 6 Patio room

7 Living / bedroom 8 Storage room 9 Void

6 7

5

4

5

3 9

8

8

3 4

5

7

6 aa

bb

b 6

6 5

5

7

5

4

5

3 a

1

3 2

1 3 7

5

5

4

a

9

8

8

3 4

5

7

6

6 b Typical floor

Ground floor

b 6 4

5

5

7

Floor plan and cubage

4

7

082 

HipHouse, Zwolle, NL

1 1 1

2 2 2

4 4 4

3 3 3

5 5 5 6 6 6

3

2 2 2

9 9 9

7 8

083 

Atelier Kempe Thill

2 3 mm aluminium sheet metal, anodised vapour-permeable foil 80 mm thermal insulation, mineral wool 25 mm calcium silicate panel 300 mm steel channel, UPN 3 2.4 × 2.5 m thermal insulation glazing UF = 2,9 W/m²K, g = 33 %, TL = 59 % in aluminium frame, anodised 4 15 mm multiplex panel 5 S 60/30/2 mm steel RHS, galvanised T 12 mm steel rod, galvanised

10

6 50 mm cement screed 230 mm concrete paver, prefabricated 50 mm ceiling slab elements, ­prestressed; 3 mm spray render 7 sliding door, insulation glazing in ­aluminium frame, anodised 8 20 mm steel grating, galvanised 9 20 mm flooring (by residents) 10 mm cement bonded particle board 40 mm EPS insulation

10 3 mm aluminium sheet metal, ­anodised vapour-permeable foil 6 0 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation 2 × 15 mm calcium silicate panel r 160/160 mm SHS 2 × 15 mm calcium silicate panel vapour barrier 15 mm multiplex panel 11 25/200 mm wood blocking 12 15/60 mm flat steel, galvanised

10

10 11

10

11

5

5

12

12

Floor plan and cubage

Vertical sections, Horizontal section Scale 1:10 1 50 mm (approx.) gravel APP modified bituminous layer 100 mm (min.) mineral wool insulation to falls; 120 mm insulation; vapour barrier; 190 mm concrete paver, prefabricated 50 mm ceiling slab elements, ­prestressed; 3 mm spray render

084 

HipHouse, Zwolle, NL

Vertical section Scale 1:10 1 skylight, insulation glazing, ­aluminium frame, anodised

2 3 mm aluminium sheet metal, ­anodised 1 15 + 18 mm multiplex panel 1 100 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation 18 mm multiplex panel 1 APP modified bituminous layer

1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7

3 250 mm reinforced concrete 4 2 mm epoxy resin 70 mm cement screed 230 mm concrete paver, pre­fabricated 50 mm ceiling slab element 20 mm (approx.) acoustic spray ­render

5 50/8 mm flat steel, galvanised 6 l 40/40 mm steel angle on 10 mm steel plate, galvanised 7 Laminated safety glass sliding door, aluminium frame, anodised

Pre fabrication 085

087 Residential building near Dantebad, Munich, DE Florian Nagler Architekten 097 White Clouds, Saintes, FR MORE Architecture, poggi Architecture 105 Frankie & Johnny, Berlin, DE Holzer Kobler Architekturen 113 Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES dataAE, Harquitectes

087

Prefabrication

Florian Nagler Architekten

Residential Building near Dantebad, Munich, DE

Residential Building near Dantebad, Munich, DE

088 

This residential building in northern Munich is the first completed project of the urban programme “Wohnen für alle” (Housing for everyone), where residential space in the high-priced real estate market of Munich is provided in a relatively short period of time for those in need and for refugees. The building, with its 100 residential units, is a prototype for two innovations: firstly, building on a site previously used as a public car park and secondly, an extremely short planning and construction phase of less than a year. This achievement was only possible due to a combination of prefabricated timber-frame elements and serially produced spatial modules. The advantage of using timber construction is obvious: A high degree of prefabrication shortened the construction period on site, thereby not only saving costs, but also requiring less space for building site facilities thanks to good logistics, and hence being less disturbing to the residents in the urban context. Due to careful planning, the construction period of the actual timber structure and the interior fittings was a mere four months. The early involvement of a general contractor made it possible to comply with a challenging time schedule, while simultaneously attaining the desired high quality of the prefabricated timber elements in the execution of construction work. The more than 100-metre-long, five-storey building creates a new face to the street on the spacious site located between an outdoor swimming pool, a sports ground, and existing housing. In order to preserve the majority of the existing parking bays, the building was raised off the ground plane on columns. For this purpose, a structure of reinforced concrete columns and beams was initially constructed, on which an in-situ concrete element was placed across the entire building length. This slab forms the base on to which the actual timber-structure housing development was built and simultaneously shields the building from possible fire loads due to the parking cars below. Only the two ends of the building accommodating building services, storage, ancillary rooms, and two stairwells extend all the way down to the ground. The floor plan is structured from the intersection of the load-bearing structure and the existing parking area grid. Three parking bays define a single prefabrication package respectively, consisting of two long, narrow units with a width of 2.91 metres, and a shorter, but broader 3.66-­metre-wide unit. The two different dimensions introduce a rhythm to the repetitive structure by creating a unit that is repeated nine times across the length of the building. All 100 flats are accessed via the staircase cores and arcades. Widened corridors in front of the broader dwelling units, as well as communal spaces, a launderette-cum-café, and a usable roof terrace with urban gardening areas serve as meeting places for the residents. The timber structure was divided into four construction phases that were implemented in parallel. The timber-­ frame elements, which include timber-framed windows and external cladding, were prepared in the manufactur-

ing plant and had to be delivered exactly according to the building site schedule and installed immediately. The building is a cross-wall construction, comprising pre­ fabricated, large-format, cross-laminated timber panels, which remain visible as a ceiling. The walls are clad in plasterboard on both sides for soundproofing. Dusty blue-­painted larch weather-board clads the non-load­bearing facade, built as a timber-frame construction. In order to comply with fire safety regulations, prefabricated reinforced concrete components are used for the ceiling slabs and columns in the arcades, while red fibre-cement boards clad the walls. All building components, including the surfaces, are prefabricated. The bathroom units were also lifted into position by a crane as complete units. The construction process is discernible in the building’s external appearance, with its deliberately expressed materiality and well-proportioned facade.

Year of completion: 

2016

Site area: 

3,813 m²

Floor area: 

4,630 m²

Housing area: 

3,615 m²

Uses:  100 flats  (1 and 2.5 room(s), between 23 and 54 m²), 4 common rooms, launderette-cum-café, roof terrace Clear ceiling height: 

2.50 m

Persons per hectare: 

341

Type of construction:  timber construction on a­  reinforced concrete frame on the ground floor,  with arcades of prefabricated  reinforced concrete components Construction costs (total; gross):  Construction costs per square metre:  Construction period:  Affordability: 

€7.25 million 1,565 €/m² 7 months

rent, government-funded housing

Residents:  49 % low earners and  social benefit recipients;  51 recognised refugees and homeless persons

089 

Florian Nagler Architekten

Site plan Scale 1:4,000 Floor plans Scale 1:750

1 Entrance 2 Bike room 3 Garbage bin room

4 Services 5 Storage rooms 6 1-room flat

7 Community room 8 2.5-room flat 9 Barrier-free ­flat

10 Sun-bathing deck 11 Play area 12 Raised planting bed

aa

10

11

12

Roof terrace

7

5 8

9

6

Third floor

11

a

12

7

5 6

6 a

First floor

7 1

1 2

4 a

3

3

Ground floor

7

a

Prefabrication

9 2

Wohnhaus am Residential Building Dantebad nearinDantebad, München,Munich, DE DE

090 

091 

Prefabrication

Florian Nagler Architekten

Residential Building near Dantebad, Munich, DE

092 

Floor plans, section Scale 1:200

2 1-room flat 23.7 m²

1 1-room flat 23.9 m²

1

2

1

First floor

3

Third floor

aa

3 2.5 room flat 54.0 m²

1

093  2  × 18 mm gypsum ­fibreboard, 200/200 mm solid timber column, glued, with separating element of 18 mm gypsum fi ­ breboard, 18 mm gypsum fibreboard, vapour ­barrier, 18 mm gypsum fibreboard 3 19 mm larch board as cover to joint between ­elements 4 100/100 mm unplaned larch as ­element frame, painted red 1

Horizontal section Scale 1:20 1 2 × 12.5 mm plasterboard panels, metal stud c ­ onstruction with 50 mm mineral wool between, 10 mm cavity, 140 mm cross-­ laminated timber 2 × 12.5 mm plasterboard panel 2 8 mm fibre cement panel, red, 40/100 mm battens 1 breathable facade sheeting,

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

5 19 mm larch boarding planed to ­reveal structure, painted pigeon blue, 35/80 mm horizontal battens, 15/60 vertical battens, breathable facade sheeting, 2 × 12.5 mm gypsum fibreboard panels 200/60 mm timber sections with 200 mm mineral wool thermal insulation between them, 12.5 mm gypsum fibreboard, vapour barrier, 12.5 mm ­gypsum fibreboard 6 triple glazing in timber frame

3

3 4

3 3 5

4 3

4

3 5

4

7

7

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

8

6

6

6

6

6

6

7 200/200 mm reinforced ­concrete ­column 8 8 mm fibre cement panel, red, 40/100 mm battens breathable facade sheeting 2 × 18 mm gypsum fibreboard, 200/60 or 200/80 timber sections with 200 mm mineral wool thermal insulation between them, 18mm gypsum fibreboard, vapour barrier, 18 mm gypsum fibreboard

4 4

5

5

5

5

Prefabrication

Florian Nagler Architekten

Residential Building near Dantebad, Munich, DE

Axonometric

094 

095 

Florian Nagler Architekten

Vertical section Scale 1:20 1 185 mm extensive planting 25 mm drainage element 6 mm building protection mat two-ply bitumen seal, 20 – 200 mm EPS thermal insula­tion laid to falls + 60 mm PUR‑rigid foam 60 mm latex-bound chippings vapour barrier (emergency seal), 140 mm cross-laminated timber slab

3

2 50 mm concrete paving slab 3 19 mm larch boarding planed to reveal structure, painted pigeon blue 35/80 mm horizontal battens 15/60 mm vertical battens breathable facade sheeting 100 mm cross-laminated timber 4 100/100 mm larch element frame 2 1 ­unplaned, painted red 5 210/40 mm larch cover 6 Roller shutter box, plastic louvres 2 1

1

2

1

2

 7 Steel rod railings, galvanised  8 19 mm larch board to cover joint  9 2.5 mm linoleum on 2 mm levelling compound 55 mm cement screed, separating layer, 40 mm mineral fibre footfall sound insulation 100 mm latex-bound chippings 140 mm cross-laminated timber slab  10 Reinforced concrete element ­PMMA-coated

11 2.5 mm linoleum on 2 mm levelling compound, 55 mm cement screed, separating layer, 20 mm mineral fibre footfall sound insulation 40 mm EPS thermal insulation, vapour barrier 120 mm EPS thermal insulation, 250 mm reinforced concrete floor slab

3 3 4 3 5 4 6 4 5 5 6 6 4 5 6

7 7 7 7

7

7 7

8

9

10

9

10

9

10

9

10

7

8 8 8

11 11 11

Prefabrication

11

Prefabrication

MORE Architecture, poggi Architecture

097

White Clouds, Saintes, FR

White Clouds, Saintes, FR

098 

In France, social housing is often associated with indus- gauges of the white metal lattices allow the degree of trially prefabricated, large housing estates on the outskirts privacy to be adjusted. Only some of the openings have of a city, which turn into social flashpoints due to a lack of open views to the inside and outside. social diversity and a dilapidated building stock. That cost-­ saving construction can also be accomplished differently, as is shown by the new “White Clouds” building on the outskirts of the French town of Saintes, 120 kilometres north of Bordeaux. The skilful combination of conventional construction method, inexpensive materials, and compact floor plans allowed the architects to keep within the tight budget, and simultaneously create valuable add­ itional dwelling space and an exciting visual identity. White Clouds forms the new entrance to the recently upgraded working-class district Les Boiffiers. Due to its location and scale, the building mediates between the monotonous housing block from the 1970s and the adjoining single-family houses. Thirty residential units with two and three-room flats are scattered across three buildings, whose form, materiality, and colour palette deliberately contrast with the nearby housing blocks. Like white cloud formations, the rectilinear forms appear to dissolve at their edges. Clad in white corrugated sheeting, the building structures appear light and weightless, as if floating, while still forming a clear overall picture. The buildings are positioned such that they make the qualities of the site visible. The building is embedded into the landscape and rather than closing themselves off, the units open up to the surroundings. Thanks to the arrangement of the footpaths, new visual relationships and an impression of depth are created throughout. At the same time, the differentiated gauges of the metal cladding provide visual protection. In the case of the two parallel buildings on the slope raised on stilts, the parking spaces are concealed from the outside, as they are integrated into the semi-sunken basement and are naturally ventilated and lit. Due to the restricted budget, the building shell has conventional walling; the floor slabs were cast in-situ; and the architects dispensed with a basement. The highlight of the buildings are the projecting loggias, which Year of completion:  2016 were cost-efficiently prefabricated as rectilinear steel Competition:  2013 modules in the manufacturing plant. With their varied diPlot area:  3,230 m² mensions and different degrees of projection, the spatial Floor area:  2,016 m² extensions contribute to the light, airy appearance and Dwelling area:  1,886 m² also complement the compact floor plans with pleasant Uses:  30 flats (2 or 3 rooms) external spaces. Clear ceiling height:  2.45 m The lack of an explicit main facade or clear front and Persons per hectare:  approx. 270 rear elevation opens up diverse spatial qualities, and alType of construction:  solid construction of masonry lows for different orientations of the flats. Though the plan  and in-situ concrete, layouts differ within the buildings, each level has the same  with loggias of prefabricated steel modules layout typologies as the one below. While the volumes Construction costs (total; net):  €2.82 million are compact and hence efficient, the private areas in the Construction costs per square metre:  1,399 €/m² flats open onto the outdoor space according to their inConstruction period:  14 months terior arrangement and the orientation of the loggias. Affordability:  rent, government-funded housing Almost all flats have two of these cubic loggias adjoining Residents:  low earners and them, merging indoor and outdoor spaces. Different mesh  social benefit recipients

099 

MORE Architecture, poggi Architecture

Site plan Scale 1:2,500 Sections, floor plans Scale 1:500

1 House entrance 2 Bike storeroom

4 Bedroom 5 Mesh loggia

3 Cooking / eating / living

6 Kitchen 7 Eating / living 8 Garage driveway

aa

bb

Second floor

b 1

a

1

4

2

4

a

3

8

7

5

3 4

4

8

6

b Ground floor

Prefabrication

1

White Clouds, Saintes, FR

100 

101 

Prefabrication

MORE Architecture, poggi Architecture

102 

White Clouds, Saintes, FR

Horizontal section Scale 1:20

1 18 mm corrugated metal, white coated 160 mm thermal insulation 200 mm concrete block skim coated 12.5 mm plasterboard

2 3 mm steel mesh mesh size 47 × 45 mm or 15 × 15 mm, white painted, on frame of r 60/60 mm ­hollow steel tube 3 r 40/40 mm square section steel tie

1 3 2

103 

MORE Architecture, poggi Architecture

5 Steel sheet reveal, white painted 6 Steel mesh to loggia, white p ­ ainted, mesh size 47 × 45 mm mesh to bay storeroom or garage mesh size 15 × 15 mm 7 Frame, square section steel tube r 60/60mm, galvanised 8 r 40/40 mm steel tie, galvanised

2 Shutter box, insulated, manually ­operated 3 Double glazing, PVC frames 4 Wall construction: 12. 5 mm plasterboard 200 mm concrete block 160 mm stone wool ­thermal ­insulation 18 mm white painted corrugated steel sheet

 9 20 mm timber boards 175/80 mm timber beams drainage level galvanised steel sheet 18 mm corrugated metal 10 Gutter, zinc sheet 11 Steel channel j 280/80 mm 12 3 mm aluminium chequered plate

6

1

6 6 6

1 1

7

1 8 7 7

2

2 2

3

5

7

8 8 8

2 3 3 3

12 5 5

9

5 12 12

9 9

12

9

11

10 11 11 11 10 10 10

4

4 4 4

Prefabrication

Vertical section Scale 1:20 1 Construction roof terrace: bituminous membrane with slate chips finish 160 mm thermal insulation ­polyurethane, vapour barrier 200 mm r. c. slab, painted white

Prefabrication

Holzer Kobler Architekturen

105

Frankie & Johnny, Berlin, DE

Frankie & Johnny, Berlin, DE

106 

Container-built villages have the reputation of transience and of being a compromised interim solution in terms of sound and thermal insulation and installations. The aim of the competition for the student village EBA51 in Berlin was to explore the potential of the application of longhaul containers for permanent housing use and to examine the urban development and architectural possibilities of modular construction. 421 stacked containers form three elongated structures on a vacant site in Berlin’s Plänterwald, framed by suburban railway lines, a supermarket, and a housing development from the 1970s. The positioning of the ensemble deliberately departs from the existing urban developmental structure, and thereby underlines its special position in the neighbourhood, which is also expressed in the rawness of the materiality. The building blocks, arranged in a fan-like manner, divide the site into various open areas with diverse amenities. The central meeting place of the student village is a public café on the ground floor of the middle building, clearly visible as a communal meeting place. A laundry café, which can be used as an  event space, as well as areas for outdoor activities such as barbecues and collaborative urban gardening complement the provided spaces. The size of an ISO container, with external dimensions of 12.19 x 2.44 metres, forms the basis of the 26 to 52 m², stacked single and double dwelling units. The prototype, which comprises the main building of the construction block “Johnny”, is based on 20 modified freight containers. Due to the effort required to implement the construction interventions, it was however decided to use serial prefabrication of modules from the second construction phase onwards, in order to save time and costs. Using this method, 40 modules can be produced and installed per month. As housing containers, these are equipped with prefabricated built-in modules for a kitchen and a bath /shower, as well as a bed and built-in cupboards. The minimised interior finish, which uses lightweight drywall systems to reduce weight, is structurally, thermally, and acoustically separated from the outer skin of the container. Instead of excavating costly basements, partially re­ inforced concrete strip foundations serve as supports. The individual elements are joined at the nodes, while the gaps between the containers are sealed in a windproof manner. Additional stiffening on projecting components and the stacked structure reinforce the construction. Besides the use of a module as a single flat, the system enables the connection of two or three containers for communal areas or flat shares. The number of unit types is flexibly adjustable according to demand. Access to the units is provided by an arcade facing the intermediate space and by stairs and bridges, which connect building wings. The containers were incised along the front and in the sides, where floor-to-ceiling-high glazing was installed. The facade orientated towards the arcade opens

up to the communal area, while more private spaces are located to the rear. The majority of the modules are stacked in an east-west orientation, but the upper floors are orientated northwards at specific locations where they are rotated 90° relative to the other units. The resulting atriums serve as meeting places and communication zones. Protrusions and setbacks of the russet red facades made of corten steel create unusual, lively outdoor spaces.

Year of completion: 

estimated 2018

Site area: 

11,000 m²

Floor area: 

12,187 m²

Clear ceiling height: 

2.55 m

Persons per hectare: 

375

Accommodation:  370 dwelling units,  including 328 single flats,  42 double flats;  administrative spaces, launderette,  spaces for building services Type of construction:  modular construction using  modified freight containers and  prefabricated steel modules Construction costs (total; gross):  Construction costs per square metre:  Construction period:  

€9.7 million 796 €/m²

6 years (three construction phases)

Affordability:  rent  (initial rent, incl. utilities, from 13.87 €/m² onwards) Residents: 

students

107 

Holzer Kobler Architekturen

Site plan Scale 1:2,500 Different unit types Scale 1:200

Section, floor plans “Johnny” block Scale 1:500

1 Residential block “Frankie” 2 Residential block “Johnny”

3 Residential block “Nelly” 4 End building 5 Double module

3

6 Single module 7 Laundry 8 Services room 9 Storage room

10 Administration 11 Lift optional

5 5

2 4 1 6 6

3

2 4 1

aa

6

5

5

6

6 5

5

6

Standard floor

8 9 5

6

6

6

10 a

7 11

Ground floor

Prefabrication

a

Frankie & Johnny, Berlin, DE

108 

109 

Prefabrication

Holzer Kobler Architekturen

110 

Frankie & Johnny, Berlin, DE

Horizontal section 2nd floor, Vertical section Scale 1:20

1 Roof construction: extensive roof planting, 90 mm substrate 140 mm XPS insulation, 2-ply root-resistant b ­ ituminous ­membrane 2 × 15 mm impregnated OSB panels

2 Container roof: 28 mm insulated trapezoid ­metal sheeting 40 mm vacuum insulation panel 30/50 mm timber sections, between them 50 mm mineral wool thermal ­i­nsulation, 2  × 12.5 mm ­plasterboard panels, with vapour barrier between them

12 15 13

7

6

11

15

3 Parapet K 400/150/4 mm steel angle 4 Corner cover strip to container 5 60/60/2.9 mm steel tube 6 Insulating glazing in aluminium frame 7 S 40/60/4 mm steel tube guard rail frame, infill 30 mm mesh

111  1

8 Floor construction: 35 mm mastic asphalt screed, ­separating layer heat-resistant, 24 mm footfall sound insulation 9 Container floor: 28 mm OSB panel S 120/45 mm steel channel

10 10 mm steel plates with pins to transfer horizontal loads, neoprene bearing 11 Wall construction container: 36 mm insulated trapezoid metal sheeting 5 mm void,

30 mm vacuum insulation 20 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation with substructure 20/30 mm sheet steel channel 2 × 12.5 mm plasterboard panels, between them vapour barrier

2

12  S 150/100/10 mm RHS steel tube 3 as frame (new) 13 Steel section corner post 14 vacuum insulation panel 1 30 mm 2 15 S 120/60/4 mm steel tube column

3 4 1

5

2

3 4 65 4

7

65 8

9 6

8

9

8

9

10

7

7

11 10

11 10

11

8

8

8

2

2

12

2

13 12

9

14

13 12

13 9

14

9

14

Prefabrication

Holzer Kobler Architekturen

113

Prefabrication

dataAE, Harquitectes

Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES

Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES

114 

BarcelonaTech, the client for the student hostel in Sant Cugat del Vallès, a town in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, broke fresh ground in the competition for the new building. The precondition for the designs submitted to the competition was the use of a pre-developed, modular, precast concrete component system. The elongated site, situated directly adjacent to a railway line, is located between the architecture faculty of BarcelonaTech and a typical residential area. The design of the winning team, by two Catalan architectural offices, assembles a total of 62 double-storey concrete modules in two rows. In their scale and density, they mediate between the small-scale housing patchwork and the ­volume of the university buildings. Between them, a rectangular courtyard forms the heart of the complex as a communal space and meeting place, flanked by arcades, which are also constructed with precast concrete parts. The advantage of the modular construction in this building not only lies in cost-efficient production and the short construction period of approximately eight months, but also in its simple disassembly, allowing individual building components to be easily separated from one another and recycled. Moreover, the building complies with the Swiss Minergie Standard, i.e. it has a thermal heat requirement of less than 38 kWh/m²a, which constitutes yet another precondition of the competition. The size of the modules, 5 x 11.2 metres, results from the maximum dimensions for transport by truck. This allows for a flat size of around 40 m² for one or two students. The bathroom is located adjacent to the entrance, while towards the rear is an integrated kitchen unit with open shelves. The remaining space can be furnished as desired. While the visually protected bedrooms lie along the outer trellised and planted facade, the kitchen-­cumdining areas with their floor-to-ceiling-high glazing are oriented towards the communal courtyard. It was also possible to reduce costs by restricting materials to the essentials. The fittings consist of multiplex boards, while walls and the surfaces of ceilings and floors remain untreated. The bathroom cubicles were also prefabricated in a material-saving manner and are integrated into the units. Open on the front facades, the concrete boxes were prefabricated in a manufacturing plant, as were the facade cladding elements consisting of insulated reinforced steel walls, which have the same basic structure. While folded sheet steel forms the exterior’s weatherproof surface, black-coated veneer plywood panels were used for weather protection on the protected elevation facing the arcade. The finished modules were transported to the building site and connected to one another by means of a reversible steel connection system. On the exterior facades, creepers climb up steel-cable mesh, providing the required sun protection, while simultaneously softening the repetitive perforated facade. Towards the courtyard, prefabricated reinforced concrete components

used as arcades or projecting roofs provide shade for the facade and simultaneously serve as semi-public leisure areas. The residency programme for the students of the nearby architecture faculty allows for a further field studies by the architects. The attempt to minimise the number of dwelling units and hence enhance residential comfort by serialisation results in a greater level of freedom for the appropriation of the space by the residents and material cost savings when reusing the modules, thus creating a sustainable and viable approach to affordable housing.

Year of completion: 

2012

Site area: 

2,400 m²

Floor area: 

3,101 m²

Housing area: 

3,013 m²

Clear ceiling height:  Uses:  Type of construction:  

2.70 m 57 two-person flats industrially prefabricated­ concrete modules

Construction costs (total):  Construction costs (per square metre): 

€3.15 million 1,015 €/m²

Construction period:  two years  (module production: 2 months;  module assembly: 2 weeks) Affordability:  Residents: 

rent students

115 

dataAE, Harquitectes

1 Student hall of ­residence 2 Architectural faculty

3 Laundry facility 4 Mechanical services 5 Access to ground floor

6 Reception area 7 Student’s room

8 Access to upper floor 9 TV room

2

1

8 9

7

aa

7

bb

4

5

a

7 6

b

3

3

b

7 5

a

Prefabrication

Site plan Scale 1:4,000 Sections, layout plans Scale 1:750

Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES

116 

117 

Prefabrication

dataAE, Harquitectes

Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES

118 

Section Scale 1:20 1 Roof construction: planted layer 100 mm substrate layer filter mat; drainage layer 1.2 mm glass-fibre-reinforced PVC sealing layer 2 × 60 mm highly compressed ­rock-wool thermal/sound insulation

120 mm steel channel posts with 2 × 60 mm rock-wool thermal ­insulation between vapour barrier 2 × 15 mm gypsum plasterboard 3 galvanised steel wire net as support for climbing plants 4 30 mm metal grating galvanised steel tube 5 Pine window frame with ­double ­glazing

vapour barrier reinforced concrete ribbed roof slab (part of prefabricated spatial module 5.00/9.30/3.08 m) 2 Facade construction: galvanised sheet steel bent to shape 20 mm battens/ventilated cavity moisture-diffusing underlayer 15 mm glass-fibre-reinforced ­cement-based construction board

1 construction: 6 Floor reinforced concrete ribbed floor slab (part of prefabricated spatial module) 40 mm highly compressed rock-wool thermal insulation 1 sealing layer 40 mm extruded polystyrene thermal insulation drainage layer 150 mm bed of gravel 1

3

2

3

2

3

2

4

4

4

5

5

5

6

6

6

119 

Prefabrication

dataAE, Harquitectes

Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES

120 

121 

Prefabrication

dataAE, Harquitectes

1

2

Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES

Section, floor plan Scale 1:100

2 Prefabricated spatial module

1 Access gallery /  ­canopy roof

1

122  3 Steel structure ­assembled on site

2

3

4 Divisions forming ­partly open recesses for service runs

5 Polyester resin ­bathroom /­  sanitary unit

3

cc

4

5

c

c

4

c

5

c

123 

Prefabrication

dataAE, Harquitectes

124 

Student Housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES

Section through facade Scale 1:20 1 Precast concrete access gallery / canopy roof 2 prefabricated spatial module 5.00/9.30/3.08 m 3 Steel structure assembled on site 4 Divisions forming partly open ­recesses for service runs: timber posts with 18 mm birch-­ 6 veneered lam. construction board on both faces 5 Polyester resin bathroom / sanitary unit

6 Roof construction: planted layer 100 mm substrate layer filter mat drainage layer 1.2 mm glass-fibre-reinforced PVC sealing layer 2 × 60 mm highly compressed ­rock-wool thermal / sound insulation vapour barrier reinforced concrete ribbed roof slab (part of prefabricated spatial module)

6

7 18 mm birch-veneered laminated construction board 40 mm sound insulation void for services 8 Facade construction: 18 mm birch-veneered laminated construction board 20 mm battens/ventilated cavity moisture-diffusing underlayer 15 mm glass-fibre-reinforced ­cement-based ­construction board o 120 mm steel channel posts with 2 × 60 mm rock-wool thermal insulation between vapour barrier 2 × 15 mm gypsum plasterboard

6

7 8

4

8

4

8

4

7

7

10

10

10

11

11

11

1

9

1

9

1

9

 9 Balustrade: 10/50 mm galvanised steel flats 10 Casement door: pine frame with double glazing 11 Floor construction: reinforced concrete ribbed floor slab (part of prefabricated spatial module) 40 mm highly compressed ­rock-wool thermal insulation sealing layer 40 mm extruded polystyrene ­thermal insulation drainage layer; 150 mm bed of ­gravel

Spatial modules of wood 125

127 Student Hostel Woodie, Hamburg, DE Sauerbruch Hutton 137 Housing Complex, R ­ ive-de-Gier, FR Tectoniques Architectes 147 Modular Housing, ­Toulouse, FR PPA architectures

Spatial modules of wood

Sauerbruch Hutton

127

Student Hostel Woodie, Hamburg, DE

Student Hostel Woodie, Hamburg, DE

128 

The district of Wilhelmsburg in Hamburg was the centre of the Internationale Bauausstellung (International Build­ ing Exhibition, IBA) from 2007 to 2013. Entitled “Entwürfe für die Zukunft der Metropole” (Designs for the Future of the Metropolis), the concept was to find solutions to top­ ical urban developmental, urban policy-related, social, and sustainability-oriented questions. The student hostel Woodie with its woven structure, which forms the ex­ tension of the headquarters of the Authority for Urban Development and Housing, reflects the experimental char­ acter of the IBA. In 2014, Sauerbruch Hutton won an invit­ ed architecture competition with this housing project. The connection with Hamburg’s nearby container port is obvious. A total of 371 prefabricated spatial modules are stacked across six floors, resulting in the world’s larg­ est housing project built with modular timber construc­ tion to date. The requirement for a building which could be built with a high quality of execution as well as effi­ ciently, was decisive in the client’s choice in favour of timber as building material and the assignment of a tim­ ber module manufacturer immediately after the com­ petition. Together with the interdisciplinary collaboration between the planning partners for the optimisation of the modules, it was the work processes tailored to modular construction that enabled the achievement of a high qual­ ity of execution. The main body of the building is interspersed with three projecting wings, whose use and functional distribution are clearly legible from the outside. Apart from the en­ trance areas and communal and dining spaces, the ele­ vated area between the circulation cores provides space for a total of 400 bicycles. The transition to the upper floor, where the student units are accommodated, is supported by a concrete plinth, on which the prefabricated wooden modules are stacked between stiffening concrete cores. The base is formed by the 20 m² dwelling units, built with 6.86 × 3.35 metre modules. Following the notion of Universal Design, the elements lend themselves to inter­ connection for utilisation scenarios in a variety of ways. The flats were prefabricated, complete with interior fur­ nishings, finished bathrooms, windows, and doors. With the exception of the floors, the wooden surfaces remained visible, which has a positive effect on the indoor climate and the well-being of the residents. An important step towards optimisation was the re­ striction to two module types: the standard type in the double-­winged area between the circulation cores, and the slightly larger, barrier-free type in the projecting wings. This permitted the use of the same components in both the construction and the interior design, making the pro­ duction of four modules per day possible. All modules were delivered to Hamburg by truck exactly to schedule, and immediately lifted into the correct position with a crane. The ventilated curtain walls, also prefabricated, are made of greyed larch wood. Thanks to the large quantity required, it was possible to manufacture the load-bearing

longitudinal walls of the modules in the required bespoke dimension of 125 millimetres, while keeping the struc­ tural framework comparatively simple. The modular walls of cross-laminated timber were constructed with a uni­ form wall thickness, which—despite a higher consump­ tion of wood—made the use of the same components and fittings possible. While the planning period for this construction method is considerably longer and more costly, the drastically shortened construction phase results in cost savings else­ where. The added value of the modular timber construc­ tion method are also evident in the aspects of sustainabil­ ity, housing quality, and building biology. A manageable number of construction details and the restriction to two module types also contributed to an efficient and afford­ able building. The fact that serialisation doesn’t neces­ sarily have to be synonymous with monotony is demon­ strated by the creative play of urban design and the facade design.

Year of completion: 

2017

Competition: 

2014

Plot area: 

4,014 m²

Floor area: 

13,140 m²

Clear ceiling height: 

2.46 m

Persons per hectare: 

924

Uses:    

371 housing modules (out of which almost 20 % disabled-friendly), common and multifunctional areas, restaurant and commercial spaces

Type of construction:  modular timber construction  on reinforced concrete table;  stiffening reinforced concrete cores Construction costs (total): 

€18.7 million

Construction costs per square metre:  1,450 €/m² GFA Construction period:  Affordability:   Residents: 

10 months

rent (from €525 per month onwards, incl. utilities) students

129 

Sauerbruch Hutton

1 Main entrance 2 Café

3 Coworking space 4 Bicycle parking

5 Mechanical services 6 Car access

7 Standard dwelling 8 Barrier-free dwelling

aa

a

7

5

a

8

Typical floor

6

5 4

4

2 3

Ground floor

1

Spatial modules of wood

Section, floor plans Scale 1:750

Student Hostel Woodie, Hamburg, DE

130 

Spatial modules of wood

Sauerbruch Hutton

131 

Student Hostel Woodie, Hamburg, DE

132 

133 

Sauerbruch Hutton

Horizontal section: timber module Scale 1:20 1 125 mm cross-laminated timber 15 mm gypsum plasterboard 50 mm mineral-wool thermal insulation (m.p. >1,000 °C) 15 mm gypsum plasterboard 125 mm cross-laminated timber

2 70 mm tiling moisture-proof layer 12.5 mm gypsum plasterboard 80 mm cross-laminated timber 15 mm gypsum plasterboard 410 mm services space 2 × 12.5 mm gypsum plasterboard 3 200/350 mm precast concrete ­column

4 26 mm greyed larch facade panel wood supporting structure / 60 mm rear-ventilated cavity waterproof membrane 200 mm wood supporting s ­ tructure / mineral-wool thermal ­insulation melting point > 1,000 °C 125 mm cross-laminated timber

5 Red grandis wood window with triple glazing (Ug = 0.6 W/m²K) sound-insulating glass Rw 44dB

4

2

5

3

Spatial modules of wood

1

Student Hostel Woodie, Hamburg, DE

134 

Floor plan of flat, scale 1:200

135 

Sauerbruch Hutton

Cross-section / longitudinal section: Timber module Scale 1:20 1 0.4 mm natural rubber 2 × 19 mm chipboard 30 mm impact-sound insulation PE foil; 60 mm bed of chippings 80 mm cross-laminated timber 70 mm mineral-wool thermal insulation (m.p. >1,000 °C) 60 mm cross-laminated timber

2 Elastomer bearing 3 0.4 mm natural rubber epoxy-resin primer 50 mm screed; polythene foil 10 mm gypsum load-distribution sheeting; polythene foil 115 mm levelling layer for service installations 160 precast concrete slab 4 200/350 mm precast concrete ­column

6

5 26 mm greyed larch facade panel wood supporting structure / 60 mm rear ventilated cavity waterproof membrane 200 mm wood supporting s ­ tructure / mineral-wool thermal insulation (m.p. >1,000 °C) 125 mm cross-laminated timber 6 80 mm planting; plastic seal 40–200 mm insulation to falls 200 mm thermal insulation bituminous seal 160 mm precast concrete slab

7 2 mm sheet aluminium supporting construction foil underlayer 200 mm wood bearing structure / mineral-wool thermal insulation (m.p. >1,000 °C) 125 mm cross-laminated timber 8 red grandis wood window with triple glazing (Ug = 0.6 W/m²K)

6

7

7

5

8

4

3

8

4

3

1

1

2

1

Spatial modules of wood

5

Spatial modules of wood

Tectoniques Architectes

137

Housing Complex, ­Rive-de-Gier, FR

Housing Complex, ­R ive-de-Gier, FR

138 

The French architects Tectoniques focus on sustainable construction methods. For their housing complex in Rive de Gier, southwest of Lyon, they designed 60 social housing units and opted for four different types of hous­ ing with a uniform construction method. The location of the 12,000 m² sloping site permitted the application of various scales, rather than a compact building mass. Ten single-­family houses, 16 terraced houses, as well as two multistorey blocks of flats are staggered in three layers, offering a diverse array of flats ranging from 30 to 100 m². The materiality and the brightness of the timber-clad build­ ings serve as connecting elements between the dwelling types. Already in the competition phase, the architects worked together with the construction company to examine how maximum cost and material savings and simultaneous quality assurance could be achieved. In doing so, one of the defining aspects was the systematics of prefabrica­ tion. Components such as walls, floors, and all elements comprising the outer skin of a building are suitable for flexible combination in favour of an open architecture. The possibilities of the digital process chain—from the planning to industrial production and assembly—allow for on-site installation without elaborate manual adjust­ ment. The fact that the prefabricated wall elements were delivered to the building site complete with insulation, installation conduits, glazing, and window shutters con­ siderably shortened the assembly time. The sanitary mod­ ules were also fully prefabricated in the manufacturing plant and delivered exactly when installation was sched­ uled. Additional cost savings were possible due to the restriction to two window formats. For the production of the components in the nearby manufacturing plant, 370 m³ of regional building timber was used. The rear-ventilated facade was likewise installed as a prefabricated compo­ nent, which was clad in white, horizontally overlapping fibre-cement boards. Larch wood window shutters add a colourful touch. The modular construction method is not limited to the timber components, but is continued in the balcony structures and the staircases, as well as in  the concrete components for the circulation cores in  the multi­storey blocks, and in the composite floor ­materials. The materiality of surfaces deliberately remains visible. Following a construction period of only six months, the first ten single-family houses were completed, while the other construction phases followed within 18 months. Despite the speed of execution, the quality of the build­ ings nevertheless remains comparatively high, with good insulation and high-quality finishes and timber window frames. Since the circulation areas are unheated on the external facade, they are naturally lit and ventilated. Balconies, varied private outdoor areas, and public spaces underline the heterogeneous character of the ensemble, and simultaneously create connections to the surrounding building development. The south-­facing

buildings are partly equipped with hot-water collectors. Furthermore, it was possible to accommodate all park­ ing spaces for residents on the site in an easily accessible manner. This enabled the avoidance of a costly base­ ment for an underground car park. This housing complex is the result of the consistent development of modular construction methods suitable for urban developments. The variation of the different types of units within a basic system demonstrates the potential of the diverse combination possibilities using prefabricated components and spatial modules, while avoiding the monotony serially produced systems risk.

Year of completion: 

2016

Plot area: 

12,406 m²

Floor area: 

4,390 m²

Clear ceiling height: 

2.50 m

Persons per hectare:  Uses:     

246 60 dwelling units: 10 single-family houses, 16 terraced houses, 34 flats in multistorey blocks of flats (1 to 4 rooms)

Type of construction: prefabricated timber-frame  construction; prefabricated concrete components Construction costs (total):  €5.38 million,  including outdoor facilities Construction costs per square metre: 

1,226 €/m²

Construction period:  single-family houses: 6 months  terraced houses: 1 month  multistorey block of flats, Collective 1A: 1 month  multistorey block of flats, Collective 1B: 1.5 months Affordability:  rent: on average between 4-6 €/m² (income-dependent) Residents:  

from various social situations, and various income and age groups

139 

Tectoniques Architectes

1 Block 1 with 16 dwellings

2 Block 2 with 18 dwellings

4 10 terraced houses

3 Block 3 with 16 dwellings

1

3

2

4

Block 1 Block 3

Block 2 Terraced housing

Spatial modules of wood

Site plan Scale 1:2,000

140 

Housing Complex, ­R ive-de-Gier, FR

Section, floor plans Scale 1:400

1 Entrance 2 Utility room

3 Room 4 Living / Dining room

5 Kitchen 6 Balcony

7 Terrace 8 Services

dd

3

3

1

3

9 9 4 5 6 4

5

3

1 4

3

3

3

3

3

3 3

3

5

3

3

3 3

3

3

First floor

6

d d

1 4

7

1 10

1 5 4

4 10 5 7

10

1 5 4

d 7 Ground floor d

Terraced houses

7

10 5

 9 Storage space 10 Garage

141 

Tectoniques Architectes

Section, floor plans Scale 1:400

1 Entrance 2 Utility room

3 Room 4 Living / Dining room

5 Kitchen 6 Balcony3

3

3

7 Terrace 3 8 Services 3

3 3

3 3

3

3

7

7

9

7

7 1

5

4 1

1

9 9 5

1 4

4

bb

3

9

5

 9 Storage space 10 Garage

9

5

4

First floor

b b 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3 4

5 3

3

5

Second floor

a

4

3

6

4

3

6 9

5

9

a

7

5

7 3

1

5 3 1

1

4

2 1

5

1

1

1

4

4 4

b

7

9

7

b

7

9

7

3

3

3

5 5

Ground floor

9

9

1

3

9

7 91

7

3

3

13

5 3

49

1

5 4

3

9

3

4 1

4 4

6

5

6 9

5

2

9

a a

b

3

3

3

3 1 4

5 b

3

7

4 9

1

3 4

5

1

3

7

b

1 4

9

3

5

7

5

7 Block 2

3

4 6 5

9

a

Spatial modules of wood

b

9

142 

Housing Complex, ­R ive-de-Gier, FR

7 5 5

Section, floor plan Scale 1:400

1 Entrance 2 Utility room

3 Room 4 Living / Dining room

5 Kitchen 6 Balcony

7 Terrace 8 Services

9 9

7

4

1

1

1

1

4  9 Storage space 10 Garage

9 5 5

4 4

b b 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

5 b b

a a

4

3

3

3

3

3

4

6

4

3

3

3

4

6

5

1

3

6 9

3 1 1 2

1

5

6 9

9

5

Standard floor

Block 1

2

5

9

a a

1

1

1

4

5

aa

1

4 4

7

9

7

7

9

7

5 5

143 

Tectoniques Architectes

1 Entrance 2 Utility room

3 Room 4 Living / Dining room

5 Kitchen 6 Balcony

7 Terrace 8 Services

 9 Storage space 10 Garage

cc

c c 3 3

3

8 9 9

1

6

31

8 9 9

1

3

5

4

5 4 6

1

4 65

3

3

1

1

4

5

3

3

3

5

4

3

3 4 6

3

5 3

3

3

3

c

c Standard floor

d 1

1 4

7

10 5

4

7

d

Block 3

Spatial modules of wood

Section, floor plan Scale 1:400

5

144 

Housing Complex, ­R ive-de-Gier, FR

Sections Scale 1:20 1 Roof construction: PVC sheeting 200 mm rigid-foam insulation vapour barrier 22 mm OSB 75/225 mm rafters

2 2 mm galvanised sheet-steel ­covering, bent to form 3 galv. steel plate 4 Ø 76.1 mm steel tube 5 13 mm gypsum plasterboard suspended soffit 6 Roller sunblind double glazing in scumbled larch frame

8 9

3 mm linoleum 30 mm screed prefabricated floor in composite 2 steel construction: concrete with mineral-fibre insulation and galv. sheet-steel supporting deck; cavity 13 mm gypsum plasterboard 2 mesh balustrade 2 mm exp.-metal

10 27 mm larch boarding on steel g-beam frame 140 mm deep 11 prefabricated facade element: 10 mm fibre-cement cladding 27 mm ventilated cavity polythene foil; 12 mm OSB 45/200 mm timber posts with mineral-wool insulation vapour barrier; 43 mm insulation 13 mm gypsum plasterboard 1

2 2

1 1

3

3

7 4 ee

1

11

3

5 6

3 4 9

5 6

4

6

9

7

9 10

8

7

9

7

10

8

10

8

10

8

e

Block 2

6

7

4

e 7

9 e 9 10 9

e e

7

e

7 e 8 7

9 10 10

e

8 11

10

8 8

11 11 11

13

12

13

12

13

12

13

12

5 5

145 

Tectoniques Architectes

12 10 mm tiling on 10 mm mortar 30 mm screed 200 mm reinf. concrete floor separating layer; 100 mm rigid-­ foam polyurethane; blinding layer 13 Terrace: 500/500 mm concrete slabs on supporting pads 14 Roof over single-family house: corrugated sheet-metal roofing 60/80 mm softwood battens and

40/60 mm counterbattens waterproof membrane 12.5 mm gypsum-fibre sheeting 58/300 mm wood joists with mineral-wool insulation between vapour barrier 45/45 mm wood bearers cavity 13 mm gypsum plasterboard

16 26 mm three-ply larch shutter 17 3 mm linoleum; 18 mm OSB 90/360 mm timber web joists with mineral-wool insulation 45/45 mm battens 13 mm gypsum plasterboard

15 Prefabricated facade element: 10 mm fibre-cement cladding 27 mm cavity polythene foil 80/60 mm timber studs with mineral-wool insulation between 12 mm composite wood board 145/40 mm timber studs with mineral-wool insulation between vapour barrier; 27 mm cavity 13 mm gypsum plasterboard

14

15

16

9 17

12

Spatial modules of wood

Terraced houses

Spatial modules of wood

PPA architectures

147

Modular Housing, ­Toulouse, FR

Modular Housing, ­Toulouse, FR

148 

A residential building with a modular timber construction completed in 2015 has created a lively, heterogeneous residential area in northern Toulouse. The 50 simple flats for young working people and elders provide cost-effi­ cient housing in the city, and are intended to contribute to the integration of lower income groups. The trapezoidal site, which had hitherto been used as a car park for the adjoining high-density housing development in the south and west, posed challenges to the architects. The incon­ venient shape and orientation of the site, the height re­ striction, as well as the desire for fast implementation re­ quired fundamental reconsideration in order to find viable solutions. A modular construction system comprising timber modules was selected, a system which the architects were already familiar with from a previous project. Using their knowledge on the advantages and limits of the sys­ tem, it was possible to rethink the principle of modular timber construction and to adapt it to the specific require­ ments of the location. The high degree of prefabrication permitted a short construction phase of only about two months—from the delivery of the first modules to the completion of the outer skin. The architects used a repeti­ tive construction system to be able to flexibly respond to the specific site and to create well-proportioned urban spaces. In spite of the maximum utilisation of the build­ ing volume, the relationship between built space and open space is appropriate, creating high-quality habit­ able spaces, while simultaneously keeping within a tight budget. Instead of a classic linear arrangement, the housing units are offset with respect to each other in groups, re­ sulting in a compact, staggered building structure, which achieves the best possible balance between privacy and sunlight exposure. As in many hotel buildings, the mod­ ules are grouped around a concrete circulation core, thus minimising the access areas for the individual units. Multiple bends in the corridor loosen up the strictness of the system, enabling natural lighting along the outer walls. The modular concept is based on three basic types of 20, 24, and 32 m², all with a standard width of 3.65 metres. Depending on their position and orientation, the length of the modules varies. In response to the loss of area ­adjacent to the lift, a special solution with a second room was developed. While the bathroom and the kitchenette are oriented towards the corridor, the living / sleeping area opens up towards the outdoor space. The modular facades are divided into two on the front: one half is glazed, while the other, closed section provides space for a sliding shutter. A total of 14 modules are located on each of the three standard floors. A gap of four modules on the ground floor creates a covered entrance area, as well as space for bicycle stands, and an administrative unit. With the exception of the stairwell, all built compo­ nents consist of screwed, cross-laminated timber. Steel

plates with welded connecting pins hold the stacked cubes in place. Wood frame walls and projecting floor slabs support the floors of the corridor, which were add­ ed later. Above the third floor, the floor slabs of the mod­ ules are laid to falls, to avoid a complicated shaping of the roof insulation on the building site. Two modules share a single shaft for building services, which are routed out­ side of the units. To lend homogeneity to the volume, the construction of the outer skin was executed on site. For this purpose, simple corrugated aluminium sheeting was employed, which reflects its surroundings and recedes into the background, depending on the incidence of sun­ light. Larch wood frames make the units legible and lend the facade a kind of simplicity reminiscent of Japanese architecture.

Year of completion: 

2015

Plot area: 

5,080 m²

Floor area: 

1,700 m²

Uses:  

50 flats (20 to 32 m²), administration, bicycle room, heating and service space

Clear ceiling height:   Costs (total): 

2.50 m in the flats; 2.25 m in the corridor € 2.4 million (construction costs)

Construction costs per square metre:  Construction period: 

1,412 €/m² 9 months

Affordability:  rent,  funded by government funding for housing Residents:  

young working persons or older persons with low incomes

149 

PPA architectures

Site plan Scale 1:2,000 Section, floor plans Scale 1:400

1 Entrance 2 Administration

3 Bike room 4 Boiler room

5 Services room 6 Flat 20 m²

7 Flat 24 m² 8 Flat 32 m²

aa

a 8

4

7

7 5

6

1

2

6

6

7

a

Ground floor

Typical floor

7

Spatial modules of wood

3

Modular Housing, ­Toulouse, FR

150 

Spatial modules of wood

PPA architectures

151 

152 

Modular housing, ­Toulouse, FR

Floor plans of modules Scale 1:200

A Residential module 20 m²

B Residential module 24 m²

C Residential module 32 m² (one-off, at lift)

Axonometrics of modular concept:

A Space that can be built on

B Shifting and swivelling the modules

C Stacking modules, omitting modules for entrance

A

B

C

A

B

C

153 

PPA architectures

Horizontal section Scale 1:20 1 120/320 mm timber sections as frame 2 Sliding shutter 1.5 mm grey-coated sheet alumi­nium screwed to R 20/20 mm hollow steel tube ­substructure 3 French window thermal glazing in ­aluminium frame

4 Aluminium angle K 40/50/5 5 1.5 mm sheet aluminium cladding screwed to 25/38 vertical battens breather membrane, 19 mm OSB panel 140 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation 38/38 mm horizontal battens with mineral wool ­between them vapour barrier,12.5 mm ­plasterboard panel, ­painted

4

6 12.5 mm plasterboard panel, painted 80 mm three-ply-cross ­laminated ­timber 50 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation separating layer, 80 mm three-ply cross-laminated timber 12.5 mm plasterboard panel, painted

7 0.8 mm corrugated aluminium sheet 25/38 mm horizontal battens, ­breather membrane 140 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation vapour barrier, 80 mm three-ply cross-laminated timber, 12.5 mm plasterboard panel, painted 8 5 mm composite aluminium panel

6

3

2

5

1

7

Spatial modules of wood

8

154 

Modular housing, ­Toulouse, FR

Vertical section Scale 1:20 1 0.8 mm corrugated aluminium sheet 25/38 mm horizontal battens breather membrane 140 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation vapour barrier, 80 mm three-ply cross-lam. timber 12.5 mm plasterboard panel, painted

2 Two ply bitumen sealing membrane 260 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation vapour barrier, 60 mm three-ply cross-laminated timber, partly to falls, varnished 3 6 mm PVC tiling, glued, 40 mm concrete screed 120 mm five-ply cross-laminated ­timber 30 mm mineral wool thermal ­insulation 60 mm three-ply cross-laminated timber varnished

4 Connecting element 10 mm flat steel with welded Ø 30 mm steel pins 5 HEA 180 steel section support 6 6 mm PVC tiling, glued 80 mm three-ply cross-laminated timber 7 Suspended ceiling, acoustically ­insulated perforated aluminium ­elements 8 S 80/60 mm RHS steel tube with ­welded 8 mm flat steel fin

 9 0.8 mm corrugated aluminium sheet 10 French window thermal glazing in aluminium frame 11 Sliding shutter 1.5 mm grey coated aluminium sheet screwed to ­substrucuture of r 20/20 mm SHS steel tube 12 8 mm coloured PMMA parapet in steel frame 13 120/320 mm timber section as frame 14 5 mm composite aluminium panel

8 9 2

2

1

10 11

12 3

3

6

66

6

6 13 14

4

44

4

4

7

5

55

5

77

5

7

7

Spatial modules of wood

PPA architectures

155 

Materials and standards 157

159 Social Housing, Paris, FR Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes 169 Vaudeville Court, L ­ ondon, GB Levitt Bernstein 177 Patio Houses, Cabeza del Buey, ES Antonio Holgado Gómez

Materials and standards

Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes

159

Social Housing, Paris, FR

Social Housing, Paris, FR

160 

Set in the midst of the lively urban neighbourhood of Gare Mont­parnasse, one of the most important transportation hubs of Paris, between railway tracks, narrow streets, and buildings from different epochs with different heights, is the site for the new construction of flats. The long side of the narrow site runs along Rue Castagnary; this determined the building scale and form, blending it into the existing urban fabric. The L-shaped plan creates a courtyard facing the neighbouring development on the southern side. The new building, accommodating ten social housing flats, is a contemporary reinterpretation of the typical Parisian housing blocks, with shops on the ground floor and residential flats above. The integration of the two upper residential levels in the roof slope allows the facade to incline, and visually reduces the scale of the building structure. While an exposed concrete wall perpendicular to the street encloses the ground level on the northern side, the building opens up along the street elevation, culminating in private open balconies on the southern side. Two dwelling units respectively are accommodated on each level—a four-room flat along the street, and a two-room flat on the wing perpendicular to Rue Castagnary; only in the recessed attic does the plan layout change to accommodate a supplementary studio. The interior spaces are characterised by high levels of daylight thanks to the French windows so typical of Paris, as well as the white ceilings and walls. The untreated exposed concrete gable walls are also a typical feature of Parisian architecture. Each flat has a balcony, oriented towards the courtyard or the street. The projecting, lightweight steel structures create a sense of lightness contrasting with its solid volumes. Access has been adapted to the specific context; in ­order to mitigate for the noisy railway tracks, an arcade runs along the eastern elevation. This arcade connects the units with the free-standing, exterior staircase and the lift. The cost-effective steel staircase leads up from the garden courtyard and, like the arcade, is encased in stainless steel mesh, which simultaneously serves as a balustrade. The new building blends into the cityscape of the quarter not only due to its form, but also thanks to the elegant, light aluminium facade, the tone of which cor­ responds to the neighbouring houses, as does the rhythm of the openings. Above the transparent ground floor, a draped homogeneous skin of corrugation clads the street facade up to the roof. Behind the vertical panels of extruded aluminium sheeting are sliding elements with rotatable aluminium slats that provide sun protection and privacy, and which the residents can adjust individually. In a closed condition, they make the building appear hermetically sealed and rather mysterious. The slats create an interesting interplay between closed, semi-open, and open slats, thus enlivening the streetscape. The facades facing the garden are clad in irregular white-painted metal sheeting.

The flat roof accommodates solar panels for power generation, which helped to achieve eligibility for the French environmental Type A certification based on low energy consumption and enhanced thermal insulation, in order to comply with the primary energy reference norm of 50 kWh/m². The use of cost-efficient materials, untreated surfaces, and the restriction to a small number of key details, allowed for the added spatial value, and also contributed to creating a distinct identity.

Year of completion: 

2016

Competition: 

2008

Plot area: 

305 m²

Floor area:  Uses:  

881 m² 10 flats (1 to 4 rooms), shop premises, courtyard/garden

Construction costs (total): 

€ 2.3 million

Construction costs per square metre: 

2,600 €/m²

Construction period: 

16 months

Affordability:   Residents:  

rent, government-funded housing low earners and social benefit recipients

161 

Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes

Materials and standards

Site plan, scale 1:4,000

162 

Social Housing, Paris, FR

Section, floor plans Scale 1:250

1 Access to dwellings 2 Shop 3 Bicycle store

4 Refuse space 5 Garden courtyard 6 Access gallery

8 Room 9 Bedroom

7 Dining / Kitchen /  ­Living room

10 10 11

10

11

6 6

11

7

8

8

7

8

8

7

8

8

6 10

7

10

7

10

7

Fifth floor

9 9

7

9

7

8

8

8

8

8

8

9

9 6

7

9

9

9

9

6 6

First floor

1 1 4

3

4

3

4

3

1

a a a 2 2 2

5 5 5

a Ground floor

a a

10

7

10

7

10

7

10 Balcony 11 One-room flat

163 

Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes

10

aa

9

Materials and standards

5

Social Housing, Paris, FR

164 

165 

Materials and standards

Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes

166 

Social Housing, Paris, FR

6 6

1 1 2 7

2

7 3 3 4 5 4 5

8 8

16

9 9 5 5 3 3 10 10 7 7

b b

b b 11 11 12 12

13 5 13 5

16

14 14 15 15

167 

Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes

Vertical, horizontal sections Scale 1:20 1 Wall construction: 2 mm extruded sheet aluminium frame powder-coated aluminium bearing section rear ventilation 180 mm foamed-glass thermal insulation 200 mm reinforced concrete wall 2 Sliding shutter: K 60/40/4 mm powder-coated ­aluminium angle frame

3 60/20 mm pivoting extruded ­aluminium louvres 4 S 60/20 mm aluminium RHS 5 Powder-coated aluminium guide track 6 Roof construction: PVC sealing layer 140 mm thermal insulation: 200 mm reinforced concrete roof 7 Double glazing in aluminium frame 8 1 mm sheet aluminium, painted

 9 Rainwater gutter 10 wall construction: 2 mm extruded sheet aluminium K 50/42 mm alum. angle supports steel angle K ventilated cavity 160 mm mineral-wool thermal insulation 11 30/6 mm galvanised steel safety rail 12 27 mm laminated beech window sill with glazed finish 13 Steel angle bracket 14 Mounting

15 16 17 18 19

Frameless double glazing Floor construction: 3 mm linoleum; 80 mm screed 200 mm reinforced concrete floor Steel channel section U 180 Steel g-beam 100 mm deep Steel channel section U 220

7

3

10

4

19 17

10

2

3

18

4

11

Materials and standards

2

Materials and standards

Levitt Bernstein

169

Vaudeville Court, ­London, GB

Vaudeville Court, L ­ ondon, GB

170 

The residential complex accommodating 13 units in the London borough of Islington is an excellent example of how re-densification can lead to affordable and sustainable housing as well as a lively neighbourhood. Where previously single-storey garages had stood as an obstacle between the existing terraced house development and a ten-storey social housing building, there are now double-­ storey courtyard houses and flats with private outdoor spaces. Despite its small scale, the project nevertheless serves as a prototype. By seeking to combine cost-­ efficient construction techniques, ecological and social awareness, and kitchen gardens in the heart of the city, the clients expressed an interest in forward thinking. The structure is suitable for an arbitrary axial extension or add­ition by a further floor, and thus represents a functional and social component for similar small urban sites. The competition for this site, held by the London Borough of Islington, was won by Levitt Bernstein’s office already in 2009, with what at that time was an unusual concept. The design was based on the principle of “productive landscapes”, where each area is examined with regard to its usability—both in the private areas as well as in the open spaces and communal areas, which feature kitchen gardens for growing fruit and vegetables. From the start, the architects sought a close relationship with the community and a participatory process with the ­occupants of the neighbouring residential tower, who manage the communal areas with a gardeners’ club. The new three and four-storey building continues the existing terraced housing on the southern side. On the northern side, the structure is visually screened by the newly designed common garden and tall trees. The two lower floors accommodate maisonettes, which face the garden side. In order to maintain an open and flowing floor plan, an in-built cupboard on the longitudinal side provides storage space. This element is extended into the garden as a seating bench and an adjoining raised flower bed. The gardens are functionally designed, including terraces, fruit and vegetable beds, fruit trees and garden rooms, which can be used for play or additional storage. Visual protection in the upper floors is provided by the covered access decks. Protective loggias are partially closed by grated walls in front; behind these, large glass frontages bring light into the centrally arranged living and dining areas. The latticed brick screens are intended to encourage vertical planting and the niches at the rear accommodate wooden benches. Two different types of clay bricks were employed for the brickwork facades. A traditional, rough, beige stone clads the front elevations, while a smooth white stone on the garden sides is envisaged to bring as much light as possible into the living rooms and covered walkways. On the northern facades, narrow, high windows provide visual protection, while the chamfered masonry reveals increase daylight penetration. The selection of materials is part of the sustainability strategy, which includes the use

of renewable energies, in this case photovoltaic modules, as well as a connection with the comprehensive district heating system, and roof planting to improve the ecological footprint.

Year of completion: 

2015

Competition: 

2009

Plot area: 

1,300 m²

Floor area: 

1,457 m²

Uses:  

13 housing units (2 to 4 rooms), community garden

Clear ceiling height: 

2.60 m

Persons per hectare: 

333

Type of construction: 

brickwork

Construction costs (total): 

€ 3.8 million

Construction costs per square metre:  Construction period:  Affordability:   Residents:  

2,600 €/m² 2 years

rent (from £2,453 per month onwards) low earners and social benefit recipients

171 

Levitt Bernstein

Materials and standards

Site plan, scale 1:2,000

172 

Vaudeville Court, L ­ ondon, GB

Section, floor plans Scale 1:500

1 Existing tower 2 Communal planted beds

3 Communal garden 4 Front garden 5 Raised bed with fruit tree

6 Kitchen 7 Living-dining room 8 Terrace

 9 Grassed area 10 Tool shed 11 Bedroom

12 Loggia 13 Access balcony

aa

12

11

11 11

11

11

12 11 6

7

12 11

11

First floor

1 2

3 5

6

5 4

6

7

8

5

9

10

10

9

5

8

4

7

a

11 a

11 11 10 10 9

Ground floor

Materials and standards

Levitt Bernstein

173 

174 

Vaudeville Court, L ­ ondon, GB 1 3

1 2

4 3 4

2

5 5

6

7 8 7

6

8

9

10 9 10

11 11

13 12 13 12

14

15

14

15

6

10

6

10

16 1

16 13

1

13

14

15

14

15

10 10

17 17

175  waterproof membrane 250 mm rigid thermal insulation 18 mm plywood panel to falls 50/300 mm timber rafters 2 × 12.5 mm gypsum plasterboard suspended soffit 5 2 × 103 mm white clay brickwork with 150 mm cavity between 6 Lintel: 3 mm steel plate painted black 7 2 mm polypropylene cavity tray 8 103 mm white clay brickwork 150 mm rigid thermal insulation 100 mm load-bearing blockwork ­vapour barrier 12.5 mm plasterboard painted white 9 103–228 mm buff hit-and-miss ­brickwork fixed to S 100/50/3.2 mm steel RHSs

Facade section, horizontal sections Scale 1:20 1 2 mm sheet aluminium capping, ­polyester powder coated 2 Brise soleil: 50/220 mm vacuum-impregnated larch planks painted black between 200 mm steel beams 3 103 mm white clay brickwork ­ (soldier bond) 50 mm cavity 100 mm rigid thermal insulation 100 mm load-bearing blockwork 50 mm rigid thermal insulation 10 mm fibre-cement board waterproof membrane 4 100 mm sedum roof 50 mm drainage and moistureretention layer

19

10 Double glazing in aluminium / wood frame 11 30 mm larch bench 12 50 mm raised concrete paving flags; waterproof membrane 100 mm rigid thermal insulation polymer-modified screed to falls 150 mm precast-concrete hollow-­ core floor; 100 mm rigid thermal ­insulation; 120 mm cavity; 10 mm ­fibre-cement soffit board 13 10 mm floor finish; 10 mm acoustic underlay; 50 mm structural topping 150 mm precast concrete hollowcore floor; 250 mm cavity 2 × 12.5 mm gypsum plasterboard suspended ceiling 14 Steel g-beam 220 mm deep 15 Steel g-beam 260 mm deep

18

16 16

10

9

9

11 11

16 Steel balustrade, painted black: 50/10 mm handrail on 8/50 mm balusters 17 75 mm screed; separating layer 110 mm thermal insulation damp-proof membrane 225 mm beam and block floor 225 mm ventilated void 18 25 mm brick slip facing system 50 mm cavity / timber framework vapour barrier; 18 mm plywood cavity; 100 mm rigid thermal ­insula­tion; 100 mm blockwork; 12.5 mm gypsum plasterboard, painted white 19 103 mm buff clay brickwork 150 mm rigid thermal insulation 100 mm load-bearing blockwork vapour barrier; 12.5 mm gypsum plasterboard painted white

19

5

5

16 16

Materials and standards

Levitt Bernstein

Materials and standards

Antonio Holgado Gómez

177

Patio Houses, Cabeza del Buey, ES

Patio Houses, Cabeza del Buey, ES

178 

At first glance, the two whitewashed residential buildings in the Spanish province of Badajoz seem like a modern interpretation of the simple traditional houses of the region. On closer inspection though, it becomes evident that they are a complex network of courtyards, intersecting volumes, and spaces. The re-densification in a well-­ established residential quarter posed challenges for the architect. The two sites are situated opposite one another in a slightly offset manner, separated by a road. On one side, they demarcate the end of a row of houses, and on the other, they close a gap between buildings. Following the topography, the terrain level on the site differs by several metres. While the adjacent terraced houses are ori­ ented in a linear manner between the streets, forming a filter zone to the public street with a private, partly roofed outdoor area, the shape of the building sites required careful consideration. The design was also influenced by regulations for the construction of publicly funded housing, which require a maximum usable area of 80 m² per unit, preferably on one level, with a pitched roof. This resulted in five small single and double-storey residential buildings, which despite the large building mass, agreeably integrate into the heterogeneous surroundings in their proportions and zigzag profile. As almost all residential buildings in the Extremadura, with its extreme temperatures in the summer and winter, these too have a central courtyard, around which the living areas are situated. The focus of the flats is the kitchen, which is connected to the courtyard visually and physically, and extending the living space to the exterior. A void complements the dwelling space in the double-­ storey areas. Surrounded by the existing building stock with partly untreated four-metre-high natural stone walls, the courtyards have been conceived as an integral part of the living area, while the significance of the street ­facade has been reduced to the function of cross-ventilation. A perforated screen wall serves as a ventilation element, while also providing additional shade by being positioned in front of the windows. The motif re-emerges repeatedly in the building and, together with the white-plastered brick walls, ensures the desired uniform appearance of the entire complex. At the same time, the screen walls create a play of light and shade, depending on the sunlight angles, lending the houses an aesthetic component. Diagonal recesses at the front doors demarcate the entrances, while the deep chamfered window reveals ensure natural shading. The dynamic zigzag form of the roofs gives the houses their own character, while the absence of an eaves overhang lend the white, homogeneous volume a sculptural plasticity. The focus on the local building tradition, a simple, regionally common construction with concrete hollow floor slabs, masonry walls, and roof tiles, helped to reduce the costs for the social housing. The attic and double brick walls ensure the required thermal protection. Instead of using complex technology, the architect deliberately used

natural cross-ventilation. The simplicity of the construction should not, however, be equated with a reduction in comfort. On the contrary, the differentiated spatial sequences create high-quality living and—thanks to skilful interweaving within the existing urban fabric—a new local identity.

Year of completion: 

2015

Plot area: 

569 m²

Floor area: 

682 m²

Clear ceiling height:  Uses:  

2.80 m 5 flats (80 m², for up to 5 persons) with courtyards

Type of construction: 

solid construction

Construction costs (total): 

€ 340,000

Construction costs per square metre: 

593 €/m²

Construction period:  Affordability:  Residents: 

9 months funded housing

persons with low household income

179 

Antonio Holgado Gómez

Materials and standards

Site plan, scale 1:2,000

House A Sections, floor plans Scale 1:400

1 Entrance 2 Bedroom

6

2

180 

Patio Houses, Cabeza del Buey, ES

3 Living room 4 Kitchen 5 Courtyard

c

6

2

2

2

5

5

4

4

3

2

5

3

1

c

2

1 a

2

3

1

2

5

4 2

aa

First floor

2 2

5

3

5

b 4 1

2

bb

5 2

4

2 3

a

Ground floor

1 2

b

181 

Antonio Holgado Gómez

1 Entrance 2 Bedroom

3 Living room 4 Kitchen 5 Courtyard

cc

6

2

2

2

6

2

2

6

2

First floor

6

2

c

5

4

4

5

3

2

3

1

c

1

c

2 5

4 2

a

5

5

3

1

4

c

2

5

3

2

1 2

Ground floor 3 a

1

3

5

4

2

2

2 1

2

2

5

2 3

b

2 4 1

2

5

4 2

5

5

5

2

3

5

b

2

3

4 1

4

2

a

2

1

5 2

2 4

2 3

a

b

1 2

b

Materials and standards

House B Sections, floor plans Scale 1:400

Patio Houses, Cabeza del Buey, ES

182 

183 

Materials and standards

Antonio Holgado Gómez

184 

Patio Houses, Cabeza del Buey, ES

Vertical sections House B Scale 1:20 1 Three-layer white glass-fibre reinforced rubber coating 20 mm roof tiling 140/280 mm welded sealing layer 40 mm screed 40 mm hollow clay blocks tarred cardboard bearing layer 115 mm hollow clay blocks 200 mm mineral-wool thermal ins. 300 mm hollow concrete blocks 15 mm gypsum plaster, painted

2 3

Matt acrylic paint seal 15 mm cement rendering 115 mm hollow-core brickwork 15 mm cement rendering 70 mm mineral-wool thermal ins. vapour barrier; 30 mm cavity 70 mm hollow-core brickwork 15 mm gypsum plaster, painted 20/400/400 mm earthenware tiling on adhesive cement layer 40 mm cement-and-sand screed 50 mm rock-wool insulation 10 mm cement-and-sand screed 300 mm hollow concrete blocks 15 mm gypsum plaster, painted

4 Matt acrylic paint seal 15 mm cement rendering sealing layer; 40 mm hollow-core brickwork; sealing layer 240 mm hollow-core brick wall

1

5 Earthenware tiling on adhesive ­cement layer 15 mm cement-and-sand screed polyester felt; bit. sealing layer 15 mm cement-and-sand screed 80 mm extruded polyester thermal insulation aerated concrete bed to falls vapour barrier 6 20–30 mm extruded polyester 7 Sliding window with alum. frame 8 20 mm marble window sill

1

5

5

2

2

3

3

4

4

185 

Antonio Holgado Gómez

6

1

7

Materials and standards

8

Appendix 187

Appendix

Project participants 01 Mehr als Wohnen, Zurich, CH Master plan: Duplex Architekten AG, Zurich, with ­Futurafrosch GmbH, Zurich Architects: Futurafrosch, Duplex Architekten (­duplex-architekten.swiss), Müller Sigrist Architekten, pool Architekten (poolarch.ch), Architekturbüro Miroslav Šik, all Zurich Landscape architect: Müller Illien Landschaftsarchitekten, Zurich Client: Building cooperative mehr als wohnen, Zurich Haus A (Building A) Architects: Duplex Architekten AG Contributors: Anne Kaestle, Dan Schürch, ­Konrad ­Mangold, Jonas Hertig, Andreas Kopp, ­Simon Schoch Interns: Sofia Kalafatis, Inga Steinbüchel, Noah Traber Construction engineer: Edy Toscano AG, Zurich Building services planning: Müller.Bucher AG Ingenieure, Zurich Electrical planning: IBG B. Graf Engineering AG, St. Gallen Building physics, acoustic planning: Mühlebach Akustik + Bauphysik, Wiesendangen Construction management: Steiner AG, Zurich Haus G (Building G) Architects: pool Architekten, Zurich Contributors: Mischa Spoerri, Raphael Frei, Martin Gutekunst (project manager), Nikolas Lill (deputy ­project manager), Ana Hernández Pérez, Cyril Arnet, Jennifer Cisullo Construction engineer: Ernst Basler + Partner, Zurich Building services planning: Gruenberg + Partner, Zurich Electrical planning: IBG B. Graf AG, St. Gallen Building physics, acoustic planning: Mühlebach Partner AG, Wiesendangen; Lemon Consult AG, Zurich Consultancy on sustainability: durable Planung und Beratung GmbH, Jörg Lamster, Zurich 02 Zwicky Süd, near Zurich, CH Architects: Schneider Studer Primas Architekten GmbH, Zurich (schneiderstuderprimas.ch) Contributors: Ivo Hasler (project manager), Elisabeth Zissis (deputy project manager), Francisco Amado, Martin Arnold, Sarah Birchler, Aline Brun, Savvas ­Ciriacidis, Nuno Correia, Ladina Esslinger, Dominik Joho, Marco Kistler, Amadeo Linke, Liliana Miguel, Laurent Nicolet, Zlatina Paneva, Lukasz Pawlicki,

188 Marina Peneva, Shohre Shafie, Valentina Sieber, Matthew Tovstiga, Thai Tran, Felipe Valadares Landscape architects: Lorenz Eugster ­Landschaftsarchitektur und Städtebau GmbH, Zurich Structural engineering: Schällibaum AG, Herisau Structural engineering, pre-project: Conzett Bronzini Gartmann, Chur Building services and electrical planning: Amstein + Walthert AG, St.Gallen/Zurich Building physics: Kopitsis Bauphysik AG, Wohlen; Ernst Basler + Partner, Zurich (noise protection) Facade planning: Atelier P3, Zurich; Fiorio Fassadentechnik GmbH, Zuzwil Art: Gabi Deutsch Client: Sub-area A (Buildings 4, 5, and 6): Bau- und Wohngenossenschaft Kraftwerk1, Zurich Bistro Hotel ZwiBack: Stiftung Altried, Zentrum für Menschen mit Behinderung, Zurich Sub-area B1 (Building 2): Anlagestiftung Turidomus (Pensimo Management AG), Zurich Sub-area B2 (Building 3): Anlagestiftung Adimora (­Pensimo Management AG), Zurich Sub-area C (Building 1): Anlagestiftung Swiss Life (Swiss Life AG), Zurich 03 Apartment Blocks Montmartre, Paris, FR Architects: Atelier Kempe Thill, Rotterdam (­atelierkempethill.com) Contributors, competition: André Kempe, Oliver Thill, Thomas Antener, Pauline Durand, Andrius Raguotis, Karel Kubza Contributors, realisation: André Kempe, Oliver Thill, Thomas Antener, Louis Lacorde, Pauline Durand, ­Andrius Raguotis, Martins Duselis, Anne-laure Gerlier, Jitske Torenstra, Jan-Gerrit Wessels, Marion Serre Partner architects, competition: Fres Architectes, ­Paris – Laurent Gravier, Sara Martin Camara; Realisation: Fres Architectes—Laurent Gravier, Sara Martin Camara, Killian Roland, Diane Roman, Artur Almeida Structural engineering: VP & Green, Paris Building physics, building services planning: Alto ­Ingénierie, Bussy-Saint-Martin Urban development planning: Atelier Choiseul, Paris General contractor: Outarex, Arcueil Client: Paris Habitat, Paris 04 Housing Development Sonnwendviertel II, Vienna, AT Architects: Geiswinkler & Geiswinkler Architekten ZT GmbH, Vienna (geiswinkler-geiswinkler.at)

189 Contributors: Roland Benesch, Iris Kiesenhofer, ­Michael Kist, Alireza Kosari, David Palus Structural engineering: RWT Plus ZT GmbH, Vienna Building services and electrical planning: Woschitz Engineering ZT GmbH, Oberwart Landscape architects: Auböck + Kárász, Vienna Construction management: Rudolf Gerstl KG, Wels Client: Heimbau Gemeinnützige Bau-, Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft, Vienna 05 HipHouse, Zwolle, NL Architects: Atelier Kempe Thill, Rotterdam (­atelierkempethill.com) Contributors: André Kempe, Oliver Thill, Cornelia Sailer, David van Eck, Peter Graf, Anja Müller, Takashi Nakamura Structural engineering: Alferink—van Schieveen, Zwolle Building physics: Adviesbureau Nieman, Zwolle Building services planning: Adviesbureau Nieman, Zwolle Urban development planning: De Zwarte Hond, Rotterdam Client: Woningstichting SWZ, Zwolle 06 Residential Building, Dantebad, Munich, DE Architects: Florian Nagler Architekten, Munich (nagler-architekten.de) Contributors: Tobias Pretscher, Patrick Fromme, ­Benedikt Rauh, Laura Kwanka Structural engineering, timber construction: ­Ingenieurbüro für Baustatik Franz Mitter-Mang, ­Waldkraiburg Structural engineering, concrete construction: r.plan GmbH, Chemnitz Building services planning: Ing.-Büro Scheerer TGA-Haustechnik, Bad Reichenhall Electrical planning: EBB GmbH, Blankenheim Landscape architecture: terra.nova Landschaftsarchitektur, Munich General contractor, construction management: B&O Wohnungswirtschaft GmbH Bayern, Bad Aibling Client: Gewofag Holding GmbH, Munich 07 White Clouds, Saintes, FR Architects: MORE architecture, Bordeaux; ­poggi ­Architecture, Bordeaux (poggi-architecture.com) Structural engineering: SNC Lavalin

Building services planning: SNC Lavalin Acoustic planning: Emacoustic, Bordeaux Client: Semis Saintes 08 Frankie & Johnny, Berlin, DE Architects: Holzer Kobler Architekturen, Zurich/Berlin (holzerkobler.com) Contributors: Philip Norman Peterson, Andrea Zickhardt; Imtiaz Ashraf, Jörg Emes, Moritz von Sassen, Kerstin Schiller, Joachim Swillus Structural engineering: Sellmann Ingenieure, Hanover Building services and electrical planning: G-M-W Ingenieurbüro GmbH, Berlin Landscape architects: Freiraum + Landschaft, Robert Nolte, Arlett Gehrke, Berlin Construction management: Fuks & Wagner, Berlin Client: Bastion Modulbau EBA 51 GmbH & Co.KG User/operator: Howoge Wohnungsbausgesellschaft mbH 09 Student housing, Sant Cugat del Vallès, ES Architects: dataAE, Barcelona; (dataae.com) Harquitectes, Sabadell (harquitectes.com) Contributors: David Lorente, Josep Ricart, Xavier Ros, Roger Tudó, Claudi Aguiló, Albert Domingo Structural engineering: DSM arquitectes, Vic Building services planning: ÀBAC enginyers, Sabadell Sustainability: Societat Orgànica, Barcelona General contractor: Constructora d’Aro, Barcelona Client: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya; CompactHabit 10 Student Hostel Woodie, Hamburg, DE Architects: Sauerbruch Hutton, Berlin (­sauerbruchhutton.com) Contributors: Louisa Hutton, Matthias Sauerbruch, Juan Lucas Young; Jürgen Bartenschlag, Sibylle Bornefeld; Bettina Magistretti, Jörg Albeke, Jil Bentz, Katja Correll, Daniel Eichenberg, Ben Hansen, Falco Herrmann, Jonathan Janssens, Erik Levander, Isabelle McKinnon, Maria Saffer, Ana Rita Silvestre Caneira, Francesco Tonnarelli, Felix Xylander-Swannell; Julien Engelhardt, Kim Istenič, Anton Leibham, Duarte Mendia Vieira, Leonardo Ottaviani, Jonah Ross-Marrs, Daisy Tickner, Agustin Uliarte, Jin Zhaoyun Structural engineering: Wetzel & von Seht, Hamburg; Merz Kley Partner, Dornbirn Building services and electrical planning: PHA Planungs­büro für haustechnische Anlagen GmbH, Breuna

Appendix

190

Landscape architects: Sinai Gesellschaft von Landschaftsarchitekten mbH, Berlin Client: Dritte Primus Projekt GmbH—ein Joint-Venture von Primus und Senectus

14 Vaudeville Court, London, GB

11 Housing Complex, Rive-de-Gier, FR Architects: Tectoniques Architectes, Lyon/Bordeaux (tectoniques.com) Contributors: Robert Weitz, Lucas Jollivet Structural engineering: Arborescence, Lyon Building services and electrical planning: Tectoniques Ingénieurs, Lyon Landscape architects: Tectoniques Architectes Construction management: Ossabois, Saint-Julien-la-Vêtre Client: Immobilière Rhone-Alpes (Groupe 3F), Lyon 12 Modular Housing, Toulouse, FR Architects, urban development planning: PPA architectures, Toulouse (ppa-a.fr) Contributors: Guillaume Pujol (Partner), Alonso Marquez Medina Structural engineering: Pyrénées Charpentes, Agos-vidalos Building services planning: Ceerce, Toulouse Acoustic planning: Gamba acoustique, Labège Environmental consultancy: Soconer, Toulouse Landscape architects: Emma Blanc, Paris Building contractor, modular timber construction: Pyrénées Charpentes, Agos-vidalos Client: Adoma, Toulouse 13 Social Housing, Paris, FR Architects: DFA Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes, ­Montreuil (feichtingerarchitectes.com) Project management: Dietmar Feichtinger Contributors, competition: Manuela Certan, Veronica Olariu Contributors, realisation: Justyna Swat, Pablo Valdivia, Claudia Valdes, Francisco Castellanos, Pierre-Alain Bouchetard Structural engineering: AR-C, Paris Building services planning: INEX, Montreuil Acoustic planning: Cabinet Jean-Paul Lamoureux, Paris Economic planning: AE Bretagne, Paris General contractor: Tempere Construction, Champagne-sur-Oise Client: RIVP, Paris

Architects and landscape architects: Levitt Bernstein, London (levittbernstein.co.uk) Contributors: Jo McCafferty, Lotta Nyman, Tony Hall, Rebekka Perkins Structural and civil engineering: Campbell Reith, London Building services planning: Norman Gutteridge Ltd., Stanford-le-Hope Electrical planning: Meadows Electrics (Wanstead) Ltd., Loughton Building control: MLM Group, Chelmsford Ecological planning: Greenlink Ecology, Sevenoaks Acoustic planning: AIRO, Hemel Hempstead General contractor: Rooff, London Client: London Borough of Islington 15 Patio Houses, Cabeza del Buey, ES Architects: Antonio Holgado Gómez, Granada Badajoz Structural engineering: Eliseo Pérez Álvarez Building services planning: Daniel Tena Velarde General contractor: Foncal Villanovense, Villanueva de la Serena Client: Junta de Extremadura, Mérida DFAB House on the Nest building of Empa (pp. 26/27) Research: Matthias Kohler, Fabio Gramazio, Gramazio Kohler Research, ETH Zurich, Benjamin Dillenburger, Digital Building Technologies Group, ETH Zurich Jonas Buchli, Agile & Dexterous Robotics Lab, ETH Zurich, Robert Flatt, Chair of Physical Chemistry of Building Materials, ETH Zurich, Joseph Schwartz, Chair of Structural Design, ETH Zurich Walter Kaufmann, Chair of Structural Engineering— Concrete Structures and Bridge Design, ETH Zurich Guillaume Habert, Chair of Sustainable Construction, ETH Zurich Architecture concept: Matthias Kohler, Konrad Graser Structural design concept: Joseph Schwartz Project Engineer: Marco Bahr Client: Empa Planning team Architecture: NCCR Digital Fabrication General planner: ERNE AG Holzbau Structural engineering: Schwartz Consulting AG Building physics: BAKUS Bauphysik und Akustik GmbH Electrical engineering: Elektro Siegrist AG HVAC/Sprinkler planner: Häusler Ingenieure AG Building technology: Schibli Gebäudetechnik Lighting design: Sommerlatte & Sommerlatte AG

191

Authors

Picture Credits

Dietmar Steiner, studied architect and one of the leading personalities communicating that profession in Austria, has been a participant in the international discourse for approximately four decades and discusses the architectural scene as a writer, critic and historian. Active with the Italian magazine Domus, he is one of the cofounders of the Architecture Centre in Vienna in 1993, of which he was director until 2016. Curator of numerous exhibitions, he is also a member and juror in many committes and councils and gives lectures all around the world. In 2016, his volume “Steiners Diary—Über Architektur seit 1959” appeared with Park Books. It was a collection of unknown texts and images from more than four decades.

Argyroglo, Martin p. 18 bottom Atelier Kempe Thill p. 82 Ateliers Jean Nouvel (Jean Nouvel & Jean-Marc Ibos), Jean Nouvel / © VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2018, Photo: Olivier Boissière p. 17 Baan, Iwan p. 23 top Balogh, Istvan pp. 49, 51 Bitter, Jan pp. 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 127, 130/131, 134 bottom, endpaper back (2x) Blau, Anna, © VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2018 p. 8 top Boureau, David pp. 159, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 Callejas, Javier pp. 97, 100/101, 102, endpaper front, courtesy of Seagate Structures Pollux Chung p. 25 bottom Crocker, Tim pp. 169, 171, 173, 174, 175 dataAE p. 119 bottom left/right Druot, Frédéric p. 18 top Ebert, Thomas p. 134 top Enriquez, Pablo p. 23 bottom Errico, Steven pp. 24 bottom, 25 top Feichtinger, Dietmar pp. 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, © VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2018 Field Condition p. 22 bottom Goula, Adrià pp. 113, 116/117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, endpaper front Granada, Jesús pp. 177, 179, 180, 181, 182/183, 184, 185, Cover Hofmeister, Sandra p. 19 top Horschinegg, Michael p. 12 Hurnaus, Herta p. 10 Kaufmann Bausysteme Götz p. 132 bottom Keystone / Andrea Helbling pp. 41 top, 43, 46/47, 48, 50, 52, 53, endpaper front Klomfar, Bruno p. 9 top Kroth, Andrea p. 32 Mair, Walter p. 39 top Marburg, Johannes p. 39 bottom Masmann, Jens p. 19 bottom Mayer, Karoline p. 9 bottom Müller-Naumann, Stefan pp. 87, 90/91, 92, 93, 94, Cover nArchitects p. 22 top NCCR Digital Fabrication / Roman Keller p. 27 Palma, Cristobal p. 31 Ruault, Philippe pp. 147, 150/151, 152, 153, 155, Cover Schoof, Jakob pp. 37, 40 Schwarz, Ulrich pp. 57, 60/61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 79, 83, 84, endpaper back Seidl, Manfred pp. 67, 69, 72/73, 74, 77 SsD architecture and urbanism p. 16 Tectoniques Architectes pp. 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, endpaper back Waki, Tohru p. 30 bottom Wrage, Götz p. 132 top/middle WStLA, Fotoarchiv Gerlach, FC1.2564M p. 8 bottom Ziegler, Lucas pp. 35, 41 bottom

Thomas Jocher is a university professor, architect and urban planner. He studied architecture at TU Munich and became Academic Officer at the Institute of Urban and Regional Planning in 1984. He then obtained his doctorate in 1990 on the subject of “The settlement structure and topography of villages founded in the Middle Ages”. After a period spent working freelance, he joined the University of Stuttgart in 1997, when he became Director of the Institute of Housing and Design (IWE). In 2007 Prof. Jocher was appointed Advisory Professor at Tongji University in Shanghai, China, and in 2009 was a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, USA. Roland Pawlitschko is an architect, freelance author, editor, translator and architecture critic. After studying architecture at the Technical Universities of Karlsruhe and Vienna, he worked with various German and Austrian architectural firms. Today he curates exhibitions on archi­tecture and the public sphere, organises architectural excursions and writes articles and essays that are published in books, magazines and daily newspapers. Collaborating with the Detail editorial team since 2007, he has written and designed print and online articles, especially for Detail structure. Benedikt Hartl is an architect and a freelance author. He studied architecture at the Technical University of Munich, the School of Architecture and Design in Oslo, and the Ardhi University in Dar es Salaam. He worked as a project head in various architectural practices in Munich, Zurich, and Paris. From 2013 to 2015, he taught at the Chair of Architectural Design at the Technical University of Munich. Since 2017, he has been a research associate at the Chair of Building Construction and Material Science, with a research focus on cost-efficient building. In 2017, he founded the architectural practice Opposite Office.

Appendix

Imprint Editor: Sandra Hofmeister Authors: Benedikt Hartl, Eva Herrmann (project texts), Sandra Hofmeister, Thomas Jocher, Roland Pawlitschko, Dietmar Steiner Project management: Nicola Bower, Eva Herrmann Translation into English: Julian Jain Copy editing (English): Anna Roos Proofreading (English): Stefan Widdess Design: strobo B M (Matthias Friederich, Julian von Klier, Samuel Hinterholzer) Drawings: DETAIL Business Information GmbH, München Reproduction: ludwig:media, Zell am See Printing and binding: Grafisches Centrum Cuno GmbH & Co.KG, Calbe The FSC ®-certified paper used for this book is ­manufactured from fibres originating from ­environmentally and socially compatible sources. © 2018, first edition DETAIL Business Information GmbH, München detail-online.com ISBN 978-3-95553-448-6 (Print) ISBN 978-3-95553-449-3 (E-Book) ISBN 978-3-95553-450-9 (Bundle)

192 This work is subject to copyright. All rights reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained. Bibliographical information published by the German National Library. The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche National­ bibliografie; detailed bibliographical data are available on the Internet at dnb.d-nb.de.

In many cities, affordable housing space has become extremely scarce. In order to meet the acute demand, convincing models and perspectives for the future are required. How can, however, housing costs be reduced without limiting the residential quality? This book documents outstanding contemporary housing constructions that distinguish themselves thanks to their quality and were, at the same time, real-

4

ised at reduced construction costs. The individual examples from all over Europe impress on account of the different concepts for affordable housing, both from clients and tenants. Their constructional solutions, the prudent choice of materials, and specific building processes had a decisive impact on reducing construction costs.

6

3

2

5

1

7

ISBN 978-3-95553-448-6

8

9 783955 534486 DETAIL Business Information GmbH, München / Munich detail.de detail-online.com