Architectural design for the youth crisis in Milan. Unconventional living-working reuse of abandoned buildings

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

FOR THE YOUTH CRISIS IN MILAN

UNCONVENTIONAL LIVING-WORKING

REUSE OF ABANDONED BUILDINGS

Abstract

This research aspires to offer one of many possible solutions to the Urban Youth Crisis. I started developing this interest while on exchange in Sydney, Australia. I participated in an innovation workshop organised by Big World Homes. Here we tackled the issue of housing amongst the younger generation. Many questions arose out of the possibility of living in small self-built spaces. The idea was in need of development, such as improving the sense of community which is often lacking in cities nowadays.

Housing should rediscover the active participation of its dwellers, who should fulfil their need to create a personal environment thus satisfying one of the strongest human emotions: the desire to possess. At the same time, the Urban Youth, which are emerging as the new poor, seek an unconventional way of living, influenced by new technology and changes in the labour market.

A possible solution to this issue was to be innovative and to aim at creating new opportunities in the housing and employment sector, without neglecting social and cohesion initiatives. Large cities need strategies for a new way of living based on sustainability and the sharing of resources thus creating communities and re-establishing a sense of belonging in a self-oriented environment.

Can a Housing Typology tackle these issues and represent a solution to this problem, at the same time being affordable and creating a sense of community? If homeownership is not a milestone for the younger generation, can new housing opportunities be introduced? This thesis plans to offer a typology of housing which would be accessible to younger people, in particular graduates, young couples or divorced parents. It creates a network of projects in the city to transform abandoned skeleton-like buildings. These buildings are in fact a great resource for low-cost materials and strategies.

The first chapter introduces urban sociology notions on the psychology of living in the city. It not only highlights the benefits but also the sense of isolation felt by city inhabitants. The second chapter identifies the urban youth as the victims of an unfriendly housing system, in an era of globalization, job insecurity and social mobility. In this framework, Milan was chosen as a case study because of its wealth of opportunities, open-minded mentality, and for its number of “ghost” buildings.

The city is a main attraction for young people and, at present, it is not considered affordable.

The third chapter illustrates the path towards the solution for housing. After considering a diverse number of precedents, each for different principles and successes, the typology of housing chosen is a collective modular system in which space becomes flexible and easy to organize.

All the internal partitions, if existent, are to be demolished to then include “inhabitable walls” which will contain storage, services and bathrooms. The volume created by these walls acts as a separating element between private living activities, and collective social spaces. The middle area is defined as a transitional space, for the needs of the inhabitants. The walls can be opened and the house becomes a sequence of spaces that can be changed through time by the inhabitants.

The fourth chapter aims at understanding what is behind today’s industrial revolution, which dramatically influences the life of the younger generation. In fact, with the digitalization of labour, many jobs are disappearing but at the same time there are great opportunities that are presenting themselves. Opportunities that could be exploited by having access to the right tools and spaces. What we see is the shift from factory mass production, with its use of large amounts of human resources, materials, machines and space – to small, local production which paradoxically can be managed through a laptop at home. What becomes essential is a sense of community, collaboration and the exchange of ideas that could catalyze success and opportunities. The project is also based on the concept of the Vertical Urban Factory, which would bring back to the city a new kind of production that is clean, sustainable and transparent. These features shaped part of the project which is community accessible. The aim is to offer maker spaces to young people, as well as a small manufacturing market, digital library, conference room and modular private offices within co-working spaces. This space will engage younger and older generations of professionals into shaping new skills and jobs.

The transformation of abandoned buildings will offer a space to the neighbourhood consisting of an internal piazza and café surrounded by an active environment with robotic production. These projects will re-activate the neglected areas of the city combining the energy of young people with the knowledge of existing residents.

1. The city and the globalized world 1.1 The upcoming globalized world

1.2 Uncontrolled growth and mass housing 1.3 Urban sociology of living in the city 2. The urban youth

2.1 The new definition of welfare state 2.2 The Urban Youth

2.3 Inequality of the City 2.4 Familistic Welfare Model

2.5 Participation and Social Inclusion 2.6 Living Solutions

2.7 House Sharing in Milan 2.8 Atypical Living Patterns 3. Services for housing

3.1 On Housing

3.2 Flat pack home Model 3.3 The Cohousing Model

3.4 Hybrid Buildings and Collective Living 3.5 Office/Housing

3.6 Reduce, Reuse, Recycle 4. Services for employment

4.1 Millenials and the Working Community 4.2 Towards the Future Workspace

4.3 The Industrial Revolution 4.0 4.4 Vertical Urban Factory 4.5 Contemporary Makerspaces 5. A solution to urban youth crisis

5.1 Reusing abandoned buildings in Milan 5.2 The Principles

5.3 Vision and Drawings

Contents

THE CITY

AND THE

GLOBALIZED

WORLD

1.

During the last decades, the population has experienced an incredible growth with a significant shift from a rural lifestyle to an urban setting (population Reference Bureau “Human Population: Urbanization”). Simultaneously, cities are in constant growth and globalization is changing dramatically the urban settlements.

Before 1800, the 97% of population depended on agriculture and hunting, and by 1950 the 30% of the world’s population was settled in urban centers. As predicted in the 2005 UN World Urbanization Prospects report, in 2008 the world population reached the “Urban Millennium” or “tipping point” by being evenly split among rural and urban areas. The world’s population is facing a significant growth that is estimated to reach 8-11 million by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. According to the Population Reference Bureau, 70% of the world population is expected to live in urban centers by 2050.

This forecasted increase in the population, which is a phenomena already visible today, feeds the growth of cities and globalization.

“Globalisation refers to all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society, global society.” (Martin Albrow, 1990)

According to the UNESCO, globalization is a multi-dimensional process which is held up by technological innovation and is based on the acceptance of common rules. In particular it relies on common cultural and social values, and it is also characterized by the reduction of welfare state, the casualization of labor and the transfer to trans-national organization of the control of national economic instruments.

“In developed countries, there is a more evident gap between who benefits from globalization and the rest of the population (poor), compared to non-developed countries.” (UN-HABITAT, 2003).

“A world where people are born in the clinic and die in hospital, where transit points and temporary abodes are proliferating under luxurious or inhuman conditions (hotel chains and squats, holiday clubs and refugee camps, shantytowns threatened with demolition or doomed to festering longevity); where a dense network of means of transport which are also inhabited spaces is developing; where the habitue of supermarkets, slot machines and credit cards communicates wordlessly, through gestures, with an abstract, unmediated commerce; a world thus surrendered to solitary in¬dividuality, to the fleeting, the temporary and ephemeral, offers the anthropologist (and others) a new object, "whose unprecedented dimensions might usefully be measured before we start wondering to what sort of gaze it may be amenable. We should add that the same things apply to the non-place as to the place. It never exists in pure form; places reconstitute themselves in it; relations are restored and resumed in it...”

The developing world is facing urbanization problems, in particular in those cities where uncontrolled growth is happening due to a mass rural exodus. A different variety of housing types are present in large cities nowadays, such as informal settlements, mass housing and gated communities.

The process of housing supply can be broken down into decision making, generation of capital and construction organization. Public housing is provided by the government, and from land acquisition to infrastructure development, the process is relatively easier than in other situations, such as informal settlements. The concept behind public housing is to achieve as many housing units possible, often sacrificing living conditions and quality of life. Architecture itself is reduced to a mere exercise of technology choices and construction, leading to quantitative rather than qualitative results. The government usually aims at controlling urban growth by building housing blocks in the outskirts of the city and often, by completion, it is more profitable for the government to sell the units rather than lend them at an affordable price.

“We can only talk about a housing problem when all the difficulties connected with living and building slot together. That is when one problem causes another, or the solution of one problem depends on that of all the others”. (N.J. Habraken)

According to N.J. Habraken, Mass housing denies the individual of any decision on the realization of his dwelling. He is merely housed and excluded from an process a priori. The user should be the driving force in a design process and accepting this would mean the end of mass housing.

Mass housing is accepted, and has been accepted largely after IIWW, for its capacity to offer large number of dwellings in very short time. However, by increasing mass housing production, there will still be insufficient dwellings for the demand in cities. This is in contrast with the machine industrial production, that enables the society to produce more than it actually consumes. Habraken states that “The conclusion to

be drawn from this is that in effect there is yet no industrialization of housing”. This to prove that mass housing and industrialization don’t go hand in hand, or else we wouldn’t still be facing housing shortage. Maybe, the potential of industrialization and standardization needs to abandon mass housing as it was thought in the pre-industrial era in order to solve the housing shortage through the re-introduction of the individual.

How can the individual contribute to the housing process? It might be that the satisfaction of some requirements for housing demand a positive and personal contribution by the individual, rather than being given a comfortable form without being able to influence it.

“Mass housing reduces the dwelling to a consumer article and the dweller to a consumer.” (N.J. Habraken)

Housing should rediscover the active participation of the dweller, who should fulfill his need to create a personal environment, fulfilling one of the strongest human needs: the desire for possession.

The city as a system has always interested philosophers such as Aristotle, who believed urban settlements were the best place for politics; Rousseau, who believed inhabitants could get together in the city and protect themselves from the authority of the government; and Max Weber, for whom the city represents the highest expression of citizenship and freedom (Rai Technology University, Engineering minds, Bagalore, Concepts of Urban Sociology).

While in the past, cities represented the place for modern culture and exchange of ideas, during the last 50 years cities have become a place for social competition and spread of globalization. Historical centers are losing their traditions, and urban sprawl is causing segregation and economically harsh conditions in suburban areas. On one hand, living in cities brings many advantages. Individuals are in the first place attracted by the hedonistic pleasure of these settlements and the possibility of developing independency and individuality. There are many advantages in terms of commuting, since the infrastructure is typically developed in large cities and reduce time and expenses for travelling and commuting. There is a great variety of markets and products which cannot be accessed in rural life. Cities are centre of money and services, in particular jobs, health and education and many rural inhabitants seek social mobility.

Degradation, scarcity of productive land, droughts and floods push people to abandon rural areas. However, when moving to the city they often face poverty and segregation conditions in order to live in the city. Life quality can be low and access to goods and services is not guaranteed for the whole population.

Georg Simmel (Berlin, 1858-1918) was one of the exponents of sociology that studied the relationship between man and city by comparing it with the relationship

between man and nature. In The Metropolis of Mental Life written in the early 1903, once an individual is introduced in the collectiveness, he loses his personality and uniforms to the others.

This behavior is called the “blasé attitude”, the indifference towards change that one develops in order to protect himself from the external stimuli typical of the city. The human mind becomes apathetic, and subsequently individuals are more reserved and interactions become very few compared to those in rural environments. The struggle of the urban modern life is to maintain personality, independence and individuality. Indifference, reservation and freedom are tools to hold on to one’s own identity.

Even though the city inhabitant is, physically, part of a group, the individual maintains a state of isolation and anonymity. A clear example of this condition, compared to the traditional rural life, is that the production system in a city offers its products to anonymous customers while in a small group the customer has a relation with the producer.

For this reason, the development of cities is causing the alienation of the individuals, which are becoming less and less rooted in traditions and places, and lack of social security in a community.

The psychologist Willy Hellpach (Oleśnica 1877- 1955) analysed human behaviour in urban areas by considering the following variables: population, proximity, life time and patience. He noticed, like Simmel, the presence of a great quantity of stimuli received in the metropolis. These stimuli create an impatience in people, which depends on their speed in making decisions. This is the origin of the human neurosis typical of the metropolitan citizen. Also, he claims that in no other situation humans are so physically close and yet interiorly distant as in the city. He assumes that the high number of inhabitants have a negative effect on the creation of communities.

THE URBAN

YOUTH

The concept of the welfare state has been modified by economic, cultural, social and environmental changes. Today’s societies are globalized and linked to consumerism, which makes it difficult to relate the definition of poverty to the annual income of an individual. In fact, there are many more factors that should be taken into consideration, such as the infrastructures accessible to inhabitants, socio-economic conditions and available opportunities and spaces. Often, there is a lack of participation in urban processes and politics which are key processes in contrasting urban poverty.

In 1979 Townsend defined the notion of poverty as “peoples, families, or groups of population that lack resources to reach those types of nutrition, participation to activities and life conditions and commodities that are typical or at least highly encouraged and approved in the society in which they belong”. But most importantly, Amartya Sen shifted the purely monetary based notion of income to the understanding of basic needs. In fact, she believes that the individual’s wellbeing and freedom play a more important role than the monetary income. (Sen, 2006) Furthermore, it is very difficult to evaluate an individual’s satisfaction and happiness in life only according to one’s income. According to Sen, the relationship between income, resources, individual achievements and freedoms is not constant. The contingencies that affect the income are identified in:

1. Personal heterogeneities (physical characteristics, disabilities, illnesses, age, gender, diverse needs)

2. Environmental diversities (climatic circumstances, temperature, rainfall, flooding) 3. Variations in social climate (public health care, epidemiology, public educational arrangements, prevalence or absence of crime and violence, accessibility to public facilities, nature of community relationships)

4. Differences in relational perspectives (being able to keep up with the standards of the rest of the community)

5. Distribution within the family : well-being or freedom of individuals in a family will depend on how the family income is used for the interests and objectives of its members.

Primary goods themselves are mainly various types of general resources, and the use of these resources to generate the capability to do things is subject to distinct types of variations, including personal heterogeneities, environmental diversities, variations in social climate, and differences in relational perspective. We can

“With the aging of the population and the scarcity of job opportunities, the urban youth are for the first time in modern history, worst off than their parents were at their age. Italy is the country more at risk of this phenomena “

(Vasi Comunicanti, Caritas)

In developed countries, the young generation is emerging as a new figure of urban poverty. They are more than ever, “housing poor” (Mackie, 2012). This condition is due to different factors, which are the unequal opportunities of the city, long education paths, the precarious working system, the traditional family arrangement and the lack of a welfare support system, lack of capital, low earning and short time to save money (Mackie, 2012). The perspective for young people is usually short term, as they are in a transitional period between study and work, socially, and their paths require often commuting or geographical mobility (Bricocoli, Sabatinelli, 2016).

The new figures of poor that are standing out for the first time, are young graduates, who are “unable to afford individual independent housing solution” (Bricocoli, Sabatinelli, 2016); young couples with children (Il sole 24 ore, 2017); and divorced couples and parents which “are often unable to purchase primary goods” (La Repubblica, 2014).

The ISTAT data underlines a correlation between absolute poverty of family and the age of the household. Out of 4.5 million of poor, the 46.6% is under 34: 2 million and 144 young people out of which 1 million and 131 are under 18. A research carried out by the central bank of Italy, Banca d’Italia, showed that “In the last 20 years the wealth gap between young and old has been gradually expanding, causing the inability for the young to save as much money as their parents used to do.” The average wealth of households with householders between 18 and 34 years old is less than half of that recorded in 1995, while the one of families with a household 65+ is increased of 60%.

The MGI, in the research “Poorer than their parents? Flat or falling incomes in advanced economies” (2016) that took into consideration France, Italy, UK and USA, underlines the risk of having a generation that will end up poorer than their parents, in particular for those less-educated. Furthermore, there are social consequences on the population, which has expressed negative opinions about immigration and

trade, believing that the next generation will advance even more slowly.

The financial crisis of 2008 was a primary cause of poverty, and while before the recession GDP growth contributed about 18% to median household income growth (avg. in USA and Europe), in the following seven years the contribution fell to 4%. It is forecasted by the MGI that even if economies catch up with the previous trajectory, a large part of the population, estimated to 70-80% in the worst scenario, will not advance, considering in particular phenomenon such as the increasing automation in workplace.

The Italian young population is often choosing to live and work outside the country. This represents a great loss for the country and its potential future. It is important to intercept the young generation with services which will benefit the country in the long term. These services do not only represent economic opportunities to live in the city, but also the stimulation of circulation of ideas, economic dynamicity and social activities. An important factor is to invest in temporary flows in the city, such as students and workers. An organizational infrastructure would allow to benefit from university and companies systems which attract young people in cities. The city of Milan can promote temporary and flexible living in order to increase dynamicity and innovation on its territory, giving opportunities and taking opportunities at the same time. Young couples must be taken into consideration as part of these flows. In fact, they often have no other choice than relocating in the outskirts of the city because of the high costs of living in Milan.

For this reason, it is of crucial importance that policy makers and business leaders work to create new solutions. If on one hand they can act on productivity, GDP growth and employment in favor of middle- and low-income households, architecture can shape new ideas of living that reduce the cost of being located in an environment of opportunities.

We can define the Urban Youth as the young people who live in the city and are affected by the changes and inequalities more than the young who live in the countryside. The urban space influences and is influenced by social changes. In cities, the social network can strengthen or weaken easily causing opportunities or disadvantages. For this reason, the urban youth are affected by the urban environment and the access to public structures plays an essential role. The presence of public structures like schools, youth centers, libraries, sports and health structures, deeply influence the development of the young people. In particular, these elements play an essential role in the shaping of adults that are responsible and participate to the development of the urban context.

Suburbanization was due to high costs, pollution and insecurities. While in the past many families decided to relocate outside the city, today the general trend is to move back to the dense urbanized centers. One of the biggest challenges for the cities is to ensure a high quality life style along with accessible housing and work opportunities. The economic crisis resulted in a large attractive power of cities that however had low job opportunities.

Different ways of living can coexist in cities. On one hand, those who live in the center of the city are privileged and usually economically stable. While those who live in stigmatized areas tend to be more poor and have less access to social and economic opportunities. Cities don’t offer equal opportunities to the urban youth. On the contrary, they represent the place in which social mobility has reached very low levels and the starting points such as family status and location have an impact on the opportunities and relationships of the individual.

In the last decades in Italy, urban poverty, which was usually a condition of low income inhabitants, started spreading towards middle- and low-income people. This phenomena is currently making ownership and rent inaccessible to these inhabitants. MI GENERATION document, a politics plan for the youth in Milan, mentions how the housing condition has become much more worrying in particular in the dense city of Lombardy with the effects of the economic crisis. In this context, the precarious conditions, with job and economic insecurity, are becoming a permanent condition for some young people rather than a transitorily phase. This includes students, young graduates or skilled professionals at the start of their career, or simply those searching for autonomy from the family.

Ownership is very common in Italy, while the number of social and public housing is very limited (Bricocoli, Cucca, 2012). Like in many other countries in Europe, some public properties have been sold on the market without considering the effects of these actions on the overall supply for housing. Also, the construction for public housing was reduced from 34.000 units in 1984 to 1.900 units in 2004 (Bricocoli, Cucca, 2012). In this scenario, the reduction of family components, the increase of single or single parents and the aging population have contributed to create an atypical housing crisis. Along with these issues, the increasingly diffused job uncertainty is putting inhabitants and young people at high risk (Baldini, 2010). The large number of privately owned properties and the incredibly selective requirements to access public housing, which is insufficient compared to the demand, create obstacles for young people. Not only in terms of fining a house, but also in terms of acquiring stability and autonomy in such precarious working conditions with low wages.

2.4 Familistic Welfare Model

Young people are subject to social and economic changes due to the change towards a postindustrial system (Crouch; Esping-Andersen, 1999). Young people are subject also to atypical working conditions, with a scarce welfare system, low protection of the position and reduced rights to access social protection. People up to 25 are more likely to be in a temporary contract (46.7%) than those ranged between 35-30 (18%) (Istat, 2012). Furthermore, job insecurity isn’t compensated by salary. In fact, a temporary worker earns a quarter less than a permanent one (ISTAT, 2013). The absence of working stability has a strong impact young people. It becomes increasingly difficult to leave their home, to live autonomously, and also to build a new family (Leccardi, Gambardella). Italian young people are known to live in the family for much longer compared to the rest of Europe. (Billari, 2004).

The welfare system in Italy is the traditional Mediterranean familistic welfare model (Esping-Andersen, 1999). Social expenditure is less focused on service provision than on monetary transfers, so scarce resources are put into allowing access to education, protecting against social risks and pensions. There isn’t, at present, any kind of government economic support for unemployment or national minimum wages schemes. This implies that one can only rely on family support (Ranci, Sabatinelli, 2014). Access to welfare protection is then segmented, and the differences between job seekers, unemployed and employed with standard jobs become very evident (Jessoula, Graziano & Madama, 2010).

The primary objective of welfare politics is to increase the autonomy of individuals reducing their dependancy upon the market and the family (Esping-Andersen, 1999). At present, the Italian welfare system is not able to respond to the new social risks (Bonoli, 2005). Not being given any other choice, the young depend mainly on their family.

On the other hand, youth poverty can be related to scarce education and low participation in facing their condition. The research “Povertà urbana e deprivazione dei giovani nella città di Milano” (ph.D Federica Roccisano, Catholic University of Milan, 2012) highlighted how the city of Milan represents a significant case study since it has social, economic and environmental features that are spatially diverse across the city. This has leaded to great movements of youth from one area to the other. The research demonstrated how there is a link between the level of education offered and urban poverty in the youth. The politics to contrast this phenomena consist mainly in the creation of an equally distributed educational system. Some of the projects that can serve as models, which were applied in the UK, include “Education Action Zones”, “Excellence in Cities initiatives”, “Connexions and Full Service Extended Schools”, which have the aim to increase and improve the access to education among different ages of population.

Other politics highlighted in the paper are based on the diffusion of participating practice to contrast social exclusion. An active project is “Tackling Poverty Together – The Role of Young People in Poverty Reduction”, lately suggested from the World Bank and ONU.

These politics can be put in action to contrast social exclusion and to increase the participation of young people in policies and urban decisions.

“Poverty reduction is not only about meeting our basic needs, it’s also about participation, influence and power”. (Hanna Hallin, President of LSU 2007–2009) According to the Nation Council of Swedish Youth Organisations, with the project “Tackling Poverty Together – The Role of Young People in Poverty Reduction”, Young people are excluded from the decision-making processes because they don’t have the opportunities to influence Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. This project brings together teams of representatives from youth organisations in international workshops. The government of each city should support Youth organisations in order to strengthen their voice in the shaping of strategies.

In order to give the youth space in decision-making, cities need to offer spaces and the possibility to the youth to be actors of a change. Furthermore, investing in young people has more potential than ever since the young today are the most educated generation of all times (The Role of Young People in Poverty Reduction).

“The number of people worldwide aged 12–24 years has reached 1.3 billion, the largest in history. It is also the healthiest and best educated – a strong base to build on in a world that demands more than basic skills.” Paul Wolfowitz; President World Bank Group 2005–2007 (World development report 2007)

According to a poll carried out in 2005 by Confcooperative - Federabitazione, ANCE and IKEA and over 20 associations, 43% of the population don’t wish to leave Milan, 25% suffers of solitude, 90% claim the loss of community and relationships together with basic social values, many have never met their neighbor but the majority would be willing to help and receive help from them.

Interventions in the city were focused on young couples, non-resident university students and young people who benefit from housing solution in exchange for community work. Mortgages have been made more accessible for new married couples as well, which represents a traditional formalization of union through joint ownership (Poggio, 2008). This solution doesn’t facilitate those couples who commute or live apart because of the labor market, and are in need for two temporary affordable housing solutions rather than one single “hard” ownership. (Bricocoli, Sabatinelli, 2016). In terms of young students, most of them live still with their family throughout their education, although cities such as Milan attract a great number of students from all over Italy and abroad. The city requires more affordable housing supply for these individuals, especially since the private sector is 26% more expensive than the national average.

Another typology of intervention was the provision of affordable housing in exchange for commitment to the community. This is based on small dwellings and usually located in disadvantages neighborhoods. The idea is that young graduates, which are selected with strict criteria, will improve the overall quality of the area. Their contribution to community is key to the regeneration of deprived areas. These programs fail to support the precariousness of the young, not meeting the need for a flexible support during the transition periods. In fact, couples have the burden of long term debts to pay off mortgage, students live in shared dorms, which would be their last choice, and then no longer have this opportunity once they finish their studies, and the young must carry out voluntary work in deprived areas for the whole time of the duration of their rent contract. (Bricocoli, Sabatinelli, 2016). The private market doesn’t respond better, as it implies the pre-determined contract (4+4) which doesn’t reflect the usual time of study courses or job contracts. It is far from giving stability and more likely to be felt a rigid solution. Not to mention, the large quantity of rentals that fall into the grey market.

In this framework, the city of Milan, and Europe in general, are demonstrating an interest towards collective living and shared housing (Bianchetti, 2014). In particular, this phenomena is extending beyond university years, and often the landlord lives in the same flat with the tenants.

2.7 House Sharing in Milan

The paper House sharing amongst young adults in Milan (Bricocoli, Sabatinelli, 2016), defines three major categories that rely on shared housing. These are graduates moving to Milan, young Milanese who decide to leave their parents’ house, and those who live in multiple places and are required to move in the short time due to work reasons. All three categories have in common that they are usually helped out by their families, or at least have that possibility in case of need. They choose to live in shared housing for economic reasons, since a single apartment would be unaffordable. This solution also allows for flexibility in the short term, since many young people cannot rely on their current job or know a priori that they will probably change situation and location.

Shared houses are not always a warm environment. In fact, in particular when the tenants are moving in for the short time of their job contract, there is very little interaction among them. This makes the bedroom a sort of individual living space, where activities such as eating and having friends over take place. Common spaces are a transitional space where to carry out cooking and other needs, but hardly to share time together and to create relationships. On the contrary, warmer households are made up usually by people who moved in together. These develop a kind of solidarity and creativity for sharing bills and goods, optimizing resources and energies.

As already mentioned, the housing system is rigid in regulations and does not meet the needs of young people. Instead, it makes it hard for them since they are exposed to market conditions without having the necessary resources and economic security. The programs proposed in Milan are not supportive since they already imply the temporality of their condition or imply restrictions and pre-determined directions (Bricocoli, Sabatinelli, 2016). Young people are forced to find self-organized solutions by renting private housing facilities on a low regulated market. Policies should engage with the living patterns of young people and the private renters of the sector, increasing guarantees for both of them. This would diminish the rentals that fall in the grey market, which represent a great loss of fiscal revenues. More flexibility should be introduced in the duration of contracts, as well as adequate forms of transaction and contracts for a new way of renting. Most importantly, the housing stock should be fit for the type of shared use that is spreading today. Post-war housing with modernist and functional architecture lacks of flexible spaces and

is hardly adaptable to the needs of young sharers. These features must be taken in consideration when designing a housing for peer sharing, with flexible adaptable space for changing uses and not designed for a typical nuclear family only.

This could represent a valid solution, with the support of private investors, to mitigate the housing crisis among young generations. It would offer affordable housing and a space to share ideas, developing participation and build trust and reciprocity.

According to the demographic analysis, it is clear that poverty is rising in cities and it’s affecting mostly the weakest parts of the population such as the young. In fact, many young are unable to face the effects of the crisis in Italy and often leave the country seeking for a job and a better future. For this reason, an architectural response to urban poverty must take into consideration two important points: 1. Services for the housing crisis

2. Services for employment

Projects should be innovative and aim at giving new opportunities in the housing and employment sector, without neglecting social and cohesion initiatives. Large cities need strategies for a new way of living based on sustainability and sharing of resources in order to create communities and re-establish a sense of belonging in such a self-oriented environment.

It is important to highlight how the housing crisis can be seen from different points of view. It is economically a crisis since homeownership has become out of reach for many young people, but there are some aspects that are often not taken into consideration. In first place, the way of living has changed dramatically and the society is struggling in offering an updated housing typology that responds to the needs of inhabitants today. It is worth considering that the changes in work and consumption among the society have led to a lack of aspiration of homeownership. In fact, we are surrounded by access-based models and shared economy, in which companies like Airbnb and Spotify provide services that they could only afford with a large number of renters and subscribers. Could this model be applied to housing?

Remote jobs: Working conditions have changed in revolutionary ways. Employments

are less secure and there are a large number of freelance workers. This condition represents a barrier to homeownership. Furthermore, people tend to work from home and don’t need a fixed geographical location, which opens the possibility to global mobility.

Mobility: The concept of geographical mobility has changed completely from the

past. Today, it is common to travel long and short distances for education or work. It is less common to have fixed roots.

Lack of local communities: While in the past the Church represented an important

institution that brought together people from the same geographical location, today there is a lack of spaces that create this communities. While certain entities offer temporary communities, such as university campus, there are not many other opportunities left.

Time poverty: Extra hours at work or long commuting create time poverty, which

can contribute to loneliness and isolation in one’s life by not allowing free time to invest in social and leisure activities.

As we can see, the housing crisis is not only an economical issue. The solution is not in cheaper or large number of accommodation, but in understanding how we work, interact, consume, and use technology in a different way and how a new housing typology should include these factors.

Isolation: There is an ancient bond between Oikos and Nomos, the house (what

holds things together) and the law (the management of things). In an era of economic crisis, there is less availability of money and this creates different needs in the way of living. Cities are already characterized by a variety of housing typologies, building technologies and construction methods, all these diverse social structures co-exist in the territory and are able to adjust and change according to the society’s needs.

If we take a look at the past, people used to be organised in villages or urban neighborhoods where relationships were stronger and more intimate. This created a sense of security and responsibility which is being lost among the inhabitants of big cities. Villages were based on mutual help and collaborations for common goals. In preindustrial communities, residential, commercial and industrial spaces were spatially organised within a small area, and often houses were located on top of shops and laboratories.

This relationship between house and workspace is very important and can be reimagined in order to fulfil the needs of the contemporary society. As mentioned earlier, full-time or part-time work from home is becoming very popular today, thanks to the new technologies, and we must take into consideration the danger of this combination. In this scenario, where technology is substituting face-to-face relationships, the traditional housing typology represents an isolated way of living.

Humans have developed in close groups and communities, while today’s society is lacking of constructive interactions such as common and shared spaces for meeting neighbors.

We can compare the city’s development to the brain’s growth (Rogel Liat). With time, it becomes more and more complex. The city develops a great potential that can be exploited with the creation of networks and connections. A collective intelligence could be the key to change traditional and obsolete ways of living in the city, which cause individualism and isolation.

This change is difficult to achieve because of Bottom-up and Top down barriers. In fact, on one side the public administrations, constructors or cooperatives fear innovation in housing. On the other hand, there is not enough information and experiences for the citizens to understand the process of change. Often there is also a fear for loss of privacy.

Can a Housing Typology tackle these issues and represent a solution to this problem, while being affordable and having a sense of community? If homeownership is not a milestone for the young generation, can new housing opportunities be introduced? Economic insecurity, time poverty and isolation are forcing the new generations to open their minds towards new ways of living and relating to others.

The characteristics of new spaces for living should be temporality, shared and hybrid spaces and relational spaces. The new typology should in fact take in consideration the mobility of young people in a time of job insecurity and dependency on rent; the opportunity of cutting costs while sharing services; the increased relations with neighbors, informal welfare and loss of individuality and the introduction of hybrid functions such as co-working, café, gym, meeting rooms.

SERVICES FOR

HOUSING

3.1 On Housing

“When we talk about houses it seems that we are talking about something given, something that has always been there, something that represents a ‘natural’ way of life. Yet housing is not only a relatively recent addition to the discipline, but also the kind of architecture through which ideologies and social containment have acquired their most deceptive form.” (P.V. Aureli, M. Tattara 2013)

Housing has historically been founded on horror vacui. The excess of design and interior design was the intention to manipulate the basic aspects of life. Corridor, stairs, elevators and partitions have been placed to create privacy and seclusion. To rethink housing is to explode these elements and reconstruct a new domesticity that embraces contemporary forms of life without constraints.

The precariousness of young people today, should be seen as an opportunity for radical, social and political intervention. In the 1930s, Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier are claimed to represent perfectly the physical possibility for reinvention (W. Benjamin, The destructive character). The former for the exterior design, anonymous as modern cities, and the latter for its interiors of anonymity and openness of form. Architects often rely on ready-made solutions for housing, and attempt to design identity. Dogma studio proposes to revert to a tabula rasa. This is the tool to allow free living space, where the walls are the means separating private from shared spaces. They are not fixed, they can gradually disappear and accommodate new functions. This destructive power of architecture is the potential to embrace new ways of living.

3.2 Flat pack home Model

Big World Homes is an Australian start-up tackling the issue of affordable housing. Led by Architect Alexander Symes, it offers a modular, mobile, off-grid housing system. It is an online sold flat pack home that can be built in two days by two people. The system is made by integrated panels acting as structural, thermal and waterproof elements.

The project is based on cutting down costs of housing, in particular Land Cost and Laur, which weights the most on the overall price of buying a house. Their model allows a 60% of saving on price. This is both an opportunity and a limitation. It allows mobility within the minimum 10 years of durability of this home. During this time, it can be moved from a land to another as it comes on the back of a trailer. The limitation is represented by the difficulty in finding a land, in particular with this being such an innovative temporary solution.

Big World Homes was founded through a Collective and Fundraising. Sponsors actively supported the project allowing the group to build the first prototypes. In 2016, the launched an Innovation Lab workshop open to contributors and financing a few places through scholarships. During this day, several teams of architects, consultants, students, economists and other experts discussed and confronted the weaknesses and strengths of BWH.

Modularity, flexibility, easily buildable and mobile were among it’s strengths. The module can be highly sustainable thanks to its solar panel and self-sustainable system. However, a few challenges have to be faced by the team. These are from a full vision of building communities within cities, codes of compliance, negotiating affordable rates and considering the locations where people want to live. One of the groups at the Innovation Lab worked on creating a community among a limited number of modules, where at least one of the modules would be a shared facility. In terms of solving the issue of the land, proposals aimed at targeting land owners offering simple benefits free of charge such as being part of the community, benefitting of a communal garden and other agreements between tenants. These types of agreements recall the typology of co-housing and it is an external proposal from the Start-Up Big World Homes.

Cohousing is a relatively recent typology of housing in Italy, which has been largely used in northern Europe. It is based on the sharing of facilities and common spaces while minimizing private space. It often includes volunteering activities which create a sense of community and participation. Cohousing in Milan is mainly managed by the association Cohousing.it.

This model was essential to understand the role of shared spaces to develop a sense of community. Young people in fact do not only need a mere space for sleeping, but they need interaction spaces to develop their networks, ambitions and collaborations.

This scenario offers important opportunities such as the introduction of new affordable forms of living in the globalised cities. Cohousing represents a valid solution, which can bring social and economic advantages to is residents, and it is based on two key elements:

1. The co-existence of private units and shared facilities 2. An active participation of its residents

In fact, it is important to underline that the residential typology and architectural design are not enough to solve the sense of solitude that is typical of the urban life. Similarly, if we apply ecological construction techniques without considering the activation of building relationships and good habits, we would end up with a condominium exactly like the ones we have today with the only difference of a sustainable energy system. Studies in anthropology, urban planning, architecture and sociology agree on the fact that our own culture and identity is influenced by the environment which we were born and in which we grew up. To design a space in which individuals work together for social and ecological purposes develops in their person a sensitivity towards nature and improves their quality of life.

“Cohousing can be defined as a smart attempt to reintroduce social relationships typical of the pre-industrial society in the current anonymous and impersonal post-industrial reality.” (M. Lietaert)

A response to changing society: Cohousing was born in Denmark and subsequently

spread in the Netherlands and in Sweden. The social changes in society, with the

affirmation of the neo-liberal system and the dissolution of the traditional family during the 70s in northern Europe. As a consequence of these phenomena, welfare and services were reduced and inhabitants had to face job insecurity, flexibility of the employment market, new typologies of family with a single parent or single divorced men. This led to the necessity of a structure like cohousing, which substituted temporally the family nucleus.

The rest of Europe is currently undergoing to similar social changes and cohousing is already giving positive results as an alternative way of living.

The Danish term bofaelleskaber literally means “living community”. Its first founder, Jan Gødmand Høyer, was inspired by Thomas More’s vision in his famous work Utopia, published in 1516. The author pictured small villages with groups of 30 families with shared facilities.

Back in the 19th century, between the Independence war and the Civil war in America (1840-1860), religious-utopian movements started. These utopian communities were organised in collective houses and wanted to bring together social groups, low to high income, in a collective private space. These movements looked back at the rural way of living, and tried to establish a Cristian community culture in order to create a strong bond among its participants by substituting the traditional family setting.

Unitè d’Habitation : Le Corbusier (1887-1965) designed the Unitè d’Habitation,

(Marseilles 1947-53), as a solution to the life in the industrial system. He was inspired by previous concepts such as Charles Fourier’s phalanstère, which included by no coincidence 1800 inhabitants like Le Corbusier did, or the Utopian-socialist prototype with the idea of an interior street linking the two edges of a building and expressing the notion of community. The Ema Monasery was an inspirational with its look out to nature, reproduced in the Unitè by the double height private dwellings with a green view. Le Corbusier was also inspired by the ocean liner when designing the collective city project in Marseille.

This project represents a milestone in the field of collective housing. It included 23 apartment typologies ranging from single studios to 4 children families. The innovation in Le Corbusier’s project is the combination of standardized units that follows his idea that mass production should be co-opted to deal with the cohousing storage. The architect developed ideas of space contraction and prolongements

du logis, the collective services. These themes brought him to design with light, space and greenery in a high-density urban context offering shared facilities to the inhabitants of the Unitè. In conclusion, this project represents one of the most innovative responses to residential needs with success thanks to the Modular proportions and the concepts for community creation.

Jan Gødmand Høyer: Jan Gødmand Høyer is considered the founder of cohousing.

The context in which Høyer acts is the industrial revolution during the 1950s, which led to a dramatic social change with evident migration towards the city, massive construction and little attention to welfare. This created the need for a new way of living, since the individuals were alienated and had lost their feel of belonging to a society.

Skraplanet was designed in 1972, to accommodate 30 single houses of 157 sqm each, with a shared wall. They had the possibility to expand of further 75 sqm. The houses are placed around the main shared space like in a village. Every house was designed as a succession of 3 levels with specific functions: 1. Kitchen and dining, 2. kids bedrooms and bathroom, 3. adult spaces such as living room, bedroom, bathroom and terrace. Although the levels are separate, there is a visual connection between the most private one and the less private one in order for the parents to have surveillance on their children.

An interesting introduction made by this project is the removal of the traditional garden in front of the kitchen, which was voluntarily absent in order to create interaction between the inhabitants of the dwellings and the neighbors walking outside. The architect had originally planned large windows and open spaces, inspired by southern communities. These features had to be readapted in his following projects because of the cold temperatures in Denmark.

While Skraplanet was a project organised between medium-high income families, Høyer designed Jernstøberiet, a project for a more mixed social group of people in Himmelev, Roskilde. The houses varied in dimension between 22 and 120 sqm, and had small private spaces with large shared ones. The residents payed according to the sqm of private space, which allows people from different social groups to afford a house.

The original principles of Cohousing: Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett,

1. Participation Process: Cohousing is based on the direct participation of

residents throughout all the phases of the project, from the design and building, to the maintenance and refurbishment. Often the residents are represented by a group of people who decided to start this project together, while it is very rare for a private developer to start one on its own. Generally, the participants find a site, hire an architect and find new people to include in the initiative. Commonly, all the apartments are rented or sold before the building is finished. The project can be carried out with a non-profit organisation or a private developer.

The approval of the neighbourhood is an important factor, since often neighbours are scared by the idea of this new way of living that will happen in their area. However, some cohousing projects have influenced positively the surrounding neighbourhood, such as the project Savvaerket in which a public movie-club has been organised and attracts inhabitants of the area. This improves the sense of community in a broader context and creates an interesting social interaction.

Another aspect to consider is the presence of national laws for construction, which can include fire safety design guidelines, number of parking lots, definition of the function of a building and its subsequent problems in including mixed functions such as shared working spaces or a kindergarten.

The collaboration of people towards the design and budget management, and their effort to face any issue, is key to the success of a cohousing project. This effort is due to the fact that the people involved are offering their time and start creating strong relationships with other participants. All of them have different needs and have to compromise their expectations in order to reach the common goal of being able to benefit from their new house. This connection between the residents makes the living easier once they move in.

2. Intentional Design: Cohousing is designed with a social intention. Its

spaces reflect the sense of community that characterises this typology of house. The definition of common spaces is crucial to their success of being exploited. For instance, parking lots can be located outside the building while the interior courtyard could be enclosed and safe for children, where more than one resident can check on them. If the residents have to walk through these spaces before entering their apartment, it is more probable that they will have interaction with other residents, and this represents one of the main goals of cohousing.

3. Common Services: Different cohousing projects can include different

typologies of shared spaces. Some examples could be dining areas, playing spaces or small rooms for seminars or informal events. Other functions included could be

and mutual help.

Common spaces are so important that it is common for the residents to give up some space dedicated to their apartment in order to have a larger and more efficient system of common services.

These spaces should be designed with the possibility to be changed in functions. In this way, they can be readapted to the needs of the residents in different moments of their life.

4. Residents Direct Management: Responsibilities are divided among the

residents. Just like in a team, some of them work more than others by definition. However, it is duty of all to participate to monthly meetings and to organise events or dinner when scheduled, as agreed in each meeting. Living in a community means having the opportunity to express personal opinions and to agree to what the majority agrees on. This practical approach can be new to many individuals who are more used to hierarchical structures. Cohousing is based on democratic principles. 5. Alternative Consumerism: Cohousing is known for an alternative to excessive consumerism which is typical of our society. According to the typology of cohousing and to the range of its residents, different services can be shared and optimised for consumption. For instance, many individuals own a car but they often use it only a couple of times a day and for the rest of the time it would be efficient if someone else could use it as well instead of owning a second car. In the same way, activities such as cultivating vegetables, preparing meals, maintenance work, child care, activities and seminars or hosting friends

Contemporary Cohousing: In recent times, the cohousing model has been applied

to vertical buildings, as this solution is more applicable in the urban context. This typology can host a large number of residents, but requires specific strategies to allow the creation of a sense of community. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, cohousing was mainly organized in small units with low density. Living in city towers is known to be less involving socially and there is rarely a sense of community. General high-rise solutions don’t seem to be beneficial for residents (Conway, 1977). However, it is hard to draw a general conclusion for the quality of living in towers, since it depends on multiple factors most of which are non-architectural. High rises appear to be the best solution when they are expensive, located in good neighborhoods and residents choose to live in them. (Gilford, 2007) This is the starting point for the development of a new typology, which is the vertical cohousing. The overall quality of live is improved by the community spaces which

3.4 Hybrid Buildings and Collective Living

Originally, as Pier Vittorio Aureli mentions in his research “The room”, there was no distinction between rooms and functions. Rooms and habitable spaces have transformed drastically since ancient Greece, when the main transport was by foot and living, workspace and trading were done in the same enclosed space or building. With the development of transport system, land became cheaper in the outskirts of cities and led to urban sprawl and dispersion of functions.

In 1985 Joseph Fenton stated the difference between mixed use buildings and hybrid buildings: the former being well known examples such as the ancient Greek shop house or the residential bridge of Ponte Vecchio. The latter taking shape after the industrial revolution and the introduction of high rise structures, which were a challenge to design with a single program.

Hybrid techniques can be seen in China and the Middle East, where the real estate boom and the economic growth has led developers to maximize built areas by mixing programs in high rise buildings. Previous to the 1980s there had been significant levels of speculation on large construction of empty office spaces which often ended up unused.

For this reason, need for specificity in earlier processes was introduced in new buildings by including tenants in the planning and with financing strategies, avoiding building with generic flexibility. Geographer Jane Jacobs (Australia 1958), supports the main role of difference and diversity in making cities “city-like” by offering experiences of metropolitan life, programs and new combinations on functions. Traditional functions have also been combined due to the increase in land and construction costs, offering a cheaper solution. Examples can be found in Seattle Museum of Art by Allied Works Architecture, that combines museum with the headquarters of a bank and a flexible space. And again in the Scala Tower in Copenhagen by BIG combining library, hotel, retail and commercial spaces. Culture and commerce are linked and often give up their individuality to be part of a larger building and image.

“Are we really seeing the emergence of a concept of ‘the individual within the collective’, a hybridizing process which tends to belong within the new dwelling modes?”

(Francine Fort, general director of the arc en reve centre d’architecture)

experiencing shared spaces together “or the collective experience in general”. Compact and vertical quarters offer diversity of experience and functions that are become more appealing than a little house surrounded by a fence. Urban sprawl has played a major role in many European countries in dispersing the population far out the cities. For this reason, new conditions for housing have to be researched that challenge topics such as identity, heritage, durability and value. Issues arising also include demolition, conservation and negotiation.

The key points in collective housing are well thought and high quality shared areas, intelligent layout with generous living spaces, passive and sustainable solutions for heating and lighting, relationship between indoor/outdoor space, variety of layout and complexity, integration of public services and embracing inventive approaches to living.

“In this way our collective inhabiting of the earth may not, after all, render the worl uninhabitable for the vast majority of our race”. (Michel Lussault)

“Any habitat, inasmuch as it signifies a settled place in the world, also signifies a settled place among men. Being in the world is always being with others; a dwelling exists at the same time in the world and at the heart of a collectivity” (Bruce Bégout)

“The true test of politics, the joyful challenge of an architecture for people as they really are, must be to take full advantage of that which is heterogeneous, to balance our differences, and to our relationships without resorting to illusory unifying factors and dire mixtures. This can best be achieved by emphasizing the aspects that bring us together in all our pluralities and singularities”. (Chris Younes)

Among collective housing projects, the CF Moller design for youth innovative housing is specifically addressed to young people. It resides in the Eternit area, a brownfield site in the outskirts of Aalborg. It is undergoing an urban transformation from being former cement industry site to new district. The building itself has a strong connection with its context, showing concrete panels with exposed joints. Color, scheme, railings and protruding volumes also recall the Danish Eternit factory.

“Optimizing the circulation and gross areas of the complex has successfully provided the budget to upgrade the shared facilities: The buildings offer both shared kitchen facilities and common rooms on various floors, common fitness facilities, internet café and workshops as well as outdoor areas designed for sports, movement, health and social life. The roofs are used for a ball court and various roof terraces, and the common facilities are highlighted with colours, graphics and scenographic lighting to emphasize their importance in the complex.”

Most importantly, residents have the opportunity to adapt the interiors in the future, extending and merging flats into shared flats or family homes. The project was built by the contractor A. Enggaard for the Himmerland Housing Association.

The office today is more “domesticized” than ever, and the separation between living and working is changing dramatically. This is mainly due to the rise of freelance and precarization of labor, with micro-companies that transcend the traditional concept of office space.

Architecturally, the office has a very flexible layout. Rem Koolhaas celebrated the conventional office plan as zero-degree architecture, “stripped of all traces of uniqueness and specificity” (SMLXL, O.M.A). In fact, the office plan is usually an open space with minimum number of vertical partitions. This allows flexibility of use and occupation.

Today, this space is accommodating living rooms and large kitchens, bringing closer the house and the workspace. This transformation is not an act of recycling a typology which is less used than it was in the past, since working is no longer defined by 9 to 5 workdays. Instead, it is the possibility of creating the physical space for the contemporary condition. This condition includes work, domestic labor, socialization, rest and exchange. They now belong to the same productive stream.

Because of the office structure being independent from partitions, introducing housing in the office plan, gives many advantages for configuration. The space becomes easier to organize with flexible collective and shared living spaces. This is a great opportunity of changing traditional office buildings which are currently facing a crisis, with the involvement for cooperatives and communities to acquire low cost space. (P.V. Aureli, M. Tattara, 2014)

Examples can be found in the Quartier Léopold project by Dogma, in Belgium. The proposal is an intervention on abandoned or highly affordable properties on the market. All the internal partitions are to be demolished to then include “inhabitable walls” which will contain storage, services, bathroom, and a bed alcove. The volume created by these walls acts as a separating element between private living activities, and collective social spaces. The middle area is defined as a poché space, for the needs of the inhabitants. The walls can be opened and the house becomes a sequence of spaces that can be changed through time by the inhabitants.

The intervention has an impact on the urban scale. In fact, the transformation of an entire block gives an inner courtyard to the community. Also, the addition of a light steel structures along the inner elevation creates a system of balconies that

“Never demolish, never remove or replace, always add, transform, and reuse!” (Lacaton Vassal)

Lacaton and Vassal design for reuse and transformation with specific interventions on existing buildings that would otherwise be demolished. These interventions add light, air and new functions to improve the potential of modernism housing blocks. They claim to improve the condition of housing as a starting point towards a more sustainable and social way of living.

Their intervention often consists of the addition of a new façade with a winter garden and balcony. This gives an open space, new relationship to the surrounding and a structure that works well with flexibility.

Their more used material is corrugated polycarbonate outfitted with ventilation panels. This encloses winter gardens and allows porosity. Plywood bifolds are used to separate flexibly environments in the Maison Latapie. The renovations made by lacaton vassal cost roughly half as much as building new apartments (65,000 euros per unit). The winter garden is always in exposed concrete and prefabricated elements with industrial materials are used for the finishes. This is a good way to control costs and allow people to find their own identity if they want to make changes later on. These choices are not only driven by economy but they have a specific aim.

Among the benefits of such renovation are the possibility of not displacing residents during the works and the apartments receive greater views. The winter garden offer not only a new and flexible space but also improve the buildings’ thermal performance, redefine existing spaces by connecting them and helping regulate their temperature.

Lacaton and Vassal are very careful to make good architecture for quality of life, thinking about the actual uses that can be done in the spaces they create and with the materials they are surrounded by.

“For us,” Lacaton says, “the strengths should not come from the form or the complexity of the architecture, but much more from the capacity the space can produce for life, for relationships.”

In an interview from the Icon, Lacaton and Vassal explain how investors, developers and politicians are pushing for smaller and smaller dwellings which might be suitable for certain individuals but not for others, in particular those who don’t have access to all the services of a city. For this reason, collective housing could offer a solution to this need for space in a time where land is getting more expensive and cities are becoming increasingly more dense to absorb the population.