RE-DWELL: Definition

Open Building

Area: Design, planning and building

Open Building is a term that was coined in the mid-1980s but is rooted in ideas from some twenty years earlier, when John Habraken first introduced the Support/Infill concept as a response to the rigidity and uniformity of the post-war mass-housing produced in the Netherlands (Habraken, 1961). Its fundamental principle involves separating the supporting structure of a building, considered a collective resource designed for durability, from the infill components, such as the walls and partitions that can be easily adapted to individual preferences and changing needs. This design approach places a strong emphasis on flexibility and adaptability, allowing buildings to evolve over time and be effortlessly modified or renovated to meet changing requirements. Furthermore, it encourages the participation of building occupants in the design and management of their homes, and it emphasizes the importance of creating buildings that are well-suited to their local context (Kendall, 2021).

The Open Building concept introduces a holistic approach to enhancing the adaptability of the built environment, considering social, technical, and organizational aspects (Cuperus, 2001). From a social perspective, Open Building advocates for an open architecture that empowers users to customize their living spaces according to their needs and preferences, accommodating unforeseen changes in the future. On an organisational level, it proposes a redistribution of the design control, enabling top-down decisions to establish a framework within which bottom-up processes can thrive. Lastly, from a technical perspective, it pursues a systematisation of building that allows for the installation, upgrading, or removal of industrialized sub-systems with minimal implications for the overall stability of the building.

This approach addresses some of the pressing challenges of the construction industry, offering the potential to enhance housing affordability and sustainability. By allowing greater flexibility in interior design and layouts, spaces can be easily reconfigured to meet changing needs, encouraging a shift towards long-term planning and fostering adaptable, future-ready living environments. Moreover, this strategy reduces the need for costly renovations and discourages demolitions, thus improving construction resilience and facilitating the seamless integration of new technologies. It successfully aligns the diverse objectives of multiple stakeholders, providing builders with a consistent support system, offering developers the freedom to experiment with layouts and ensure long-term functional performance, and granting users the possibility to make personalized choices. For decades, this inherent adaptability has been successfully applied in diverse building types, including shopping centres, office buildings, and hospitals. These buildings necessitate facilities that are 'change-ready', capable of accommodating changes over time, with a focus on long-term adaptability rather than short-term design adequacy (Kendall, 2017; Leupen, 2004).

Open Building promotes environmental sustainability through its ‘levels concept’, acknowledging that building components have varying lifespans. The disentanglement and clarity of these hierarchical levels and their interfaces promotes the longevity of infrastructures while enabling incremental renewal and innovation, an increasingly common need in the construction sector. Higher levels provide a framework for the lower levels, setting the overall parameters and constraints in which the lower ones can operate (Habraken, 1998). Additionally, Open Building encourages the separation of building elements into the ‘Shearing layers of change’ articulated by Steward Brand in 1994 (Brand, 1994). These layers provide flexibility and adaptability to the buildings as they can be designed, built, and maintained independently from each other, facilitating design for disassembly practices. Additionally, through a modular coordination of standardised components, not only it is possible to increase the collaboration in the design and construction process of housing, but also to encourage a proliferation of technical subsystems that can be continuously upgraded and scaled-up within an open framework (Kendall & Dale, 2023b).

In the housing realm, a key difference between traditional design and the Open Building approach is their underlying methods. Traditional design examines diverse household types and lifestyles from an anthropologic perspective, suggesting various typologies. In contrast, Open Building focuses on creating an open system with no predefined designs. Instead, it operates with a framework of rules, zones and categories to enable the customisation of each dwelling by the user (Habraken, 1976). The adoption of Open Building was a response to the rigidity and waste caused by continued adherence to functionalism where buildings were designed according to the “form-follows-function” principle and became obsolete or impractical for the coming generations and costly to maintain. On the other hand, open architecture can cater to local and cultural demands, embracing the complexity of the built environment by acknowledging that it cannot be fully controlled or shaped by a single agent (Kendall, 2013; Kendall & Dale, 2023a; Paulichen et al., 2019). This encourages community involvement in the design and construction process, creating a sense of ownership and fostering inclusivity.

There are many examples across Europe of residential Open Building such as Gleis 21 in Austria, R50 Cohousing in Germany, or Stories in Netherlands. Other cases have been developed as open systems rather than individual projects, replicated and adapted to diverse locations but following the same strategy, as for example the Superlofts by Mark Koehler Architects, which since 2016 has built seven projects in the Netherlands out of this system. Determining whether a project is an Open Building and the degree of flexibility it offers can be measured through a classification chart developed by the Open Building Collective, which is based in the principles showcased in their Manifesto. The dissemination of these exemplary projects through publications (Schneider & Till, 2007), awards, conferences and the Open Building Collective, has stimulated the exchange of knowledge between researchers, practitioners and other stakeholders, spreading the interest in this concept and its practical implementation.

Despite its potential benefits, the implementation of Open Building in multi-family housing faces challenges due to entrenched traditional practices, regulatory barriers favouring fixed layouts, and the short-term perspectives among developers, investors, and clients (De Paris & Lopes, 2018; Montaner et al., 2015). However, successful Open Building projects around the globe demonstrate that its capacity to address holistically the social, technical, and organizational aspects of a changing society. It encourages the space appropriation at the infill level while ensuring resilience and robustness in the support level, fostering enduring and inclusive buildings that allow diverse households to coexist and evolve over time (Kendall, 2022).

References

Brand, S. (1994). How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. Penguin Books.

Cuperus, Y. (2001). An introduction to open building. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.

De Paris, S. R., & Lopes, C. N. L. (2018). Housing flexibility problem: Review of recent limitations and solutions. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.11.004

Habraken, J. (1976). Variations: The Systematic Design of Supports. MIT Press.

Habraken, N. J. (1961). Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003014713

Habraken, N. J. (1998). The Structure of the Ordinary (J. Teicher, Ed.). MIT Press.

Kendall, S. (2017). Four decades of open building implementation: Realising individual agency in architectural infrastructures designed to last. Architectural Design, 87(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2216

Kendall, S. (2022). Residential Open Building projects in a number of countries. In Residential Architecture as Infrastructure (1st ed., pp. 1–22). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018339

Kendall, S. H. (2013). The next wave in housing personalisation: Customised residential fit-out. In Mass Customisation and Personalisation in Architecture and Construction (Vol. 9780203437735). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203437735

Kendall, S. H. (2021). Residential Architecture as Infrastructure. In Residential Architecture as Infrastructure. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018339

Kendall, S. H., & Dale, J. R. (2023a). Involving people in the housing process. In The Short Works of John Habraken. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003011385-18

Kendall, S. H., & Dale, J. R. (2023b). Open Building as a condition for industrial construction. In The Short Works of John Habraken. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003011385-46

Leupen, B. (2004). The Frame and the Generic Space , a New Way of Looking to Flexibility. Open Building and Sustainable Environment. The 10th Annual Conference of the CIB W104 Open Building Implementation.

Montaner, J. M., Habraken, N. J., & Sainz, J. (2015). La arquitectura de la vivienda colectiva: políticas y proyectos en la ciudad contemporánea. In Estudios universitarios de arquitectura (Vol. 26). Revert.

Paulichen, L., Leite, R. M., Mikami, S. A., & Pina, G. (2019). Resilience in architecture: Housing as a process. Strategic Design Research Journal, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.4013/SDRJ.2019.123.06

Schneider, T., & Till, J. (2007). Flexible housing. Elsevier.

Created on 14-11-2023 | Update on 23-10-2024

Classification framework developed by Open Building Collective to assess how flexible a building is. The image showcases the classification of the housing development Top-Up, by Tom Frantzen et al architecten. SOURCE: Tom Frantzen et al architecten

Related definitions

Participatory Approaches

Author: A.Pappa (ESR13), L.Ricaurte (ESR15), M.Alsaeed (ESR5)

Area: Community participation

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, participation is “the act of taking part in an activity or event”. Likewise, it can also mean “the fact of sharing or the act of receiving or having a part of something.” It derives from old French participacion which in turn comes from late Latin participationem, which means “partaking” (Harper, 2000). References to participation can be found in many fields, including social sciences, economics, politics, and culture. It is often related to the idea of citizenship and its different representations in society. Hence, it could be explained as an umbrella concept, in which several others can be encompassed, including methodologies, philosophical discourses, and tools. Despite the complexity in providing a holistic definition, the intrinsic relation between participation and power is widely recognised. Its ultimate objective is to empower those involved in the process (Nikkhah & Redzuan, 2009). An early application of participatory approaches was the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) which exerted a significant influence in developing new discourses and practices of urban settings (Chambers, 1994; Friedmann, 1994). In the late 1970s increasing attention was paid to the concept by scholars, and several associated principles and terminologies evolved, such as the participation in design and planning with the Scandinavian approach of cooperative design (Bφdker et al., 1995; Gregory, 2003). Participation in design or participatory design is a process and strategy that entails all stakeholders (e.g. partners, citizens, and end-users) partaking in the design process. It is a democratic process for design based on the assumption that users should be involved in the designs they will go on to use (Bannon & Ehn, 2012; Cipan, 2019; Sanoff, 2000, 2006, 2007). Likewise, participatory planning is an alternative paradigm that emerged in response to the rationalistic and centralized – top-down – approaches. Participatory planning aims to integrate the technical expertise with the preferences and knowledge of community members (e.g., citizens, non-governmental organizations, and social movements) directly and centrally in the planning and development processes, producing outcomes that respond to the community's needs (Lane, 2005). Understanding participation through the roles of participants is a vital concept. The work of Sherry Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation has long been the cornerstone to understand participation from the perspective of the redistribution of power between the haves and the have-nots. Her most influential typological categorisation work yet distinguishes eight degrees of participation as seen in Figure 1: manipulation, therapy, placation, consultation, informing, citizen control, delegated power and partnership. Applied to a participatory planning context, this classification refers to the range of influence that participants can have in the decision-making process. In this case, no-participation is defined as designers deciding based upon assumptions of the users’ needs and full-participation refers to users defining the quality criteria themselves (Geddes et al., 2019). A more recent classification framework that also grounds the conceptual approach to the design practice and its complex reality has been developed by Archon Fung (2006) upon three key dimensions: who participates; how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action. This three-dimensional approach which Fung describes as a democracy cube (Figure 2), constitutes a more analytic space where any mechanism of participation can be located. Such frameworks of thinking allow for more creative interpretations of the interrelations between participants, participation tools (including immersive digital tools) and contemporary approaches to policymaking. Aligned with Arnstein’s views when describing the lower rungs of the ladder (i.e., nonparticipation and tokenism), other authors have highlighted the perils of incorporating participatory processes as part of pre-defined agendas, as box-ticking exercises, or for political manipulation. By turning to eye-catching epithets to describe it (Participation: The New Tyranny? by Cooke & Kothari, 2001; or The Nightmare of Participation by Miessen, 2010), these authors attempt to raise awareness on the overuse of the term participation and the possible disempowering effects that can bring upon the participating communities, such as frustration and lack of trust. Examples that must exhort practitioners to reassess their role and focus on eliminating rather than reinforcing inequalities (Cooke & Kothari, 2001).

Created on 17-02-2022 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Sustainability Built Environment

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5), K.Hadjri (Supervisor)

Area: Design, planning and building

Sustainability of the built environment The emergence of the contemporary environmental movement between the 1960s and 1970s and its proposals to remedy the consequences of pollution can be seen as one of the first steps in addressing environmental problems (Scoones, 2007). However, the term “sustainable” only gained wider currency when it was introduced into political discourse by the Club of Rome with its 1972 report “The Limits to Growth”, in which the proposal to change growth trends to be sustainable in the far future was put forward (Grober, 2007; Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015a; Meadows et al., 1972). Since then, the use of the term has grown rapidly, especially after the publication of the 1978 report “Our Common Future”, which became a cornerstone of debates on sustainability and sustainable development (Brundtland et al., 1987; Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015a). Although the two terms are often used indistinctively, the former refers to managing resources without depleting them for future generations, while the latter aims to improve long-term economic well-being and quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015b; UNESCO, 2015). The Brundtland Report paved the way for the 1992 Earth Summit, which concluded that an effective balance must be found between consumption and conservation of natural resources (Scoones, 2007). In 2000, the United Nations General Assembly published the 8 Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2000), which led to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) published in 2016 (UN, 2016). The 17 SDGs call on all countries to mobilise their efforts to end all forms of poverty, tackle inequalities and combat climate change (UN, 2020; UNDP, 2018). Despite the rapidly growing literature on sustainability, the term remains ambiguous and lacks a clear conceptual foundation (Grober, 2007; Purvis et al., 2019). Murphy (2012) suggests that when defining sustainability, the question should be: Sustainability, of what? However, one of the most prominent interpretations of sustainability is the three pillars concept, which describes the interaction between the social, economic and environmental components of society (Purvis et al., 2019). The environmental pillar aims to improve human well-being by protecting natural capital -e.g. land, air and water- (Morelli, 2011). The economic sustainability pillar focuses on maintaining stable economic growth without damaging natural resources (Dunphy et al., 2000). Social sustainability, on the other hand, aims to preserve social capital and create a practical social framework that provides a comprehensive view of people's needs, communities and culture (Diesendorf, 2000). This latter pillar paved the way for the creation of a fourth pillar that includes human and culture as a focal point in sustainability objectives (RMIT, 2017). Jabareen (2006) describes environmental sustainability as a dynamic, inclusive and multidisciplinary concept that overlaps with other concepts such as resilience, durability and renewability. Morelli (2011) adds that it can be applied at different levels and includes tangible and intangible issues. Portney (2015) takes Morelli's explanation further and advocates that environmental sustainability should also promote industrial efficiency without compromising society's ability to develop (Morelli, 2011; Portney, 2015). Measuring the built environment sustainability level is a complex process that deploys quantitative methods, including (1) indexes (e.g. energy efficiency rate), (2) indicators (e.g. carbon emissions and carbon footprint), (3) benchmarks (e.g. water consumption per capita) and (4) audits (e.g. building management system efficiency) (Arjen, 2015; Berardi, 2012; James, 2014; Kubba, 2012). In recent years, several rating or certification systems and practical guides have been created and developed to measure sustainability, most notably the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) introduced in the UK in 1990 (BRE, 2016) and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) established in the US in 2000 (USGBC, 2018). In addition, other overlapping methodologies and certification frameworks have emerged, such as the European Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) in 2002 (EPB, 2003) and the European Framework for Sustainable Buildings, also known as Level(s) in 2020 (EU, 2020), amongst others. The sustainability of the built environment aims to reduce human consumption of natural resources and the production of waste while improving the health and comfort of inhabitants and thus the performance of the built environment elements such as buildings and spaces, and the infrastructure that supports human activities (Berardi, 2012; McLennan, 2004). This aim requires an effective theoretical and practical framework that encompasses at least six domains, including land, water, energy, indoor and outdoor environments, and economic and cultural preservation (Ferwati et al., 2019). More recently, other domains have been added, such as health and comfort, resource use, environmental performance, and cost-benefit and risk (EU, 2020). Sustainability of the built environment also requires comprehensive coordination between the architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and environmental systems of buildings in the design, construction and operation phases to improve performance and avoid unnecessary resource consumption (Yates & Castro-Lacouture, 2018).

Created on 24-06-2022 | Update on 16-11-2022

Read more ->

Mass Customisation

Author: C.Martín (ESR14)

Area: Design, planning and building

Mass customisation (MC) is a process by which a company approaches its production in a customer-centric manner, developing products and services according to the needs and requirements of each individual customer, while keeping costs near to mass production (Piller, 2004). MC establishes a new relationship between producers and customers which becomes crucial in product development (Khalili-Araghi & Kolarevic, 2016). Alvin Toffler (1970, 1980) was the first to refer to the MC concept in his books “Future shock” and “The third wave”. Stanley Davis (1987) later cemented the term in his book “Future Perfect”. But it was not until 1993, when Joseph Pine developed its practical application to business, that the concept started gaining greater importance in research and practice (Pine, 1993; Brandão et al., 2017; Piller et al., 2005). Nowadays, MC is understood as a multidimensional process embracing a combination of mass production, user-driven technologies, big data, e-commerce and e-business, digital design, and manufacturing technologies (Brandão et al., 2017). In the last twenty years, almost every sector of the economy, from industrial production to consumer products and services, has been influenced by mass customisation. The difference between mass customisation and massive customisation is the ability to relate the contextual features to the product features. This means that a random generation of design alternatives would not be sufficient; these alternatives should be derived from the cultural, technological, environmental and social context, as well as from the individual context of the user (Kolarevic & Duarte, 2019). As a business paradigm, MC provides an attractive added value by addressing customer needs while using resources efficiently and avoiding an increase in operational costs (Piller & Tseng, 2009). It seeks to incorporate customer co-design processes into the innovation and strategic planning of the business, approaching economies of integration (Piller et al., 2005). As a result, the profitability of MC is achieved through product variety in volume-related economies (Baranauskas et al., 2020; Duray et al., 2000). The space in which it is possible to meet a variety of needs through a mass customisation offering is finite (Piller, 2004). This solution space represents the variety of different customisation units and encompasses the rules to combine them, limiting the set of possibilities in the search of a balance between productivity and flexibility (Salvador et al., 2009). The designer’s responsibility would be to meet the heterogeneities of the users in an efficient way, by setting a solution space and defining the degrees of freedom for the customer within a manufacturer’s production system (Hippel, 2001). Therefore, an important challenge for a company that aims at becoming a mass customizer is to find the right balance between what is determined by the designer and what is left for the user to decide (Kolarevic & Duarte, 2019). Value creation within a stable solution space is one of the major differences between traditional customisation. While a traditional customizer produces unique products and processes, a mass customizer uses stable processes to provide a high range of variety among their products and services (Pine, 1993). This would enable a mass customizer to achieve “near mass production efficiency” but would also mean that the customisation alternatives are limited to certain product features (Pine, 1995). As opposed to the industrial output of mass production, in which the customer selects from options produced by the industry, MC facilitates cultural production, the personalisation of mass products in accordance with individual beliefs. This means that the customer contributes to defining the processes, components, and features that will be involved in the flow of the design and manufacturing process (Kieran & Timberlake, 2004). Products or services that are co-designed by the customer may provide social benefits, resulting in tailor-made, fitting, and resilient outcomes (Piller et al., 2005). Thanks to parametric design and digital fabrication it is now viable to mass-produce non-standard, custom-made products, from tableware and shoes to furniture and building components. These are often customizable through interactive websites (Kolarevic & Duarte, 2019). The incorporation of MC into the housebuilding industry, through supporting, guiding, and informing the user via interactive interfaces (Madrazo et al., 2010), can contribute to a democratisation of housing design, allowing for an empowering, social, and cultural enrichment of our built environment. Our current housing stock is largely homogeneous, while customer demands are increasingly heterogeneous. Implementing MC in the housing industry could address the diverse consumer needs in an affordable and effective way, by creating stable solution spaces that could make good quality housing accessible to more dwellers. Stability and responsiveness are key in the production of highly customised housing. Stability can be achieved through product modularity, defining and producing a set of components that can be combined in the maximum possible ways, attaining responsiveness to different requests while reducing the complexity of product variation. This creates customisation alternatives within the solution space which require a smooth flow of information and effective collaboration between customers, designers, and manufacturers (Khalili-Araghi & Kolarevic, 2018). ICT technologies can help to effectively materialise this multidimensional and interdisciplinary challenge in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry, as showcased in the Sato PlusHome multifamily block in Finland[1]. Nowadays, there are companies that have integrated a systematic methodology to produce mass customised single-family homes using prefabrication methods, such as Modern Modular[2]. On the other hand, platforms such as BIM that act as collaborative environments for all stakeholders have demonstrated that building performance can be increased and precision improved while reducing construction time. These digital twins offer a basis for fabricated components and enable early cooperation between different disciplines. Parametric tools have the potential to help customisation comply with the manufacturing rules and regulations, and increase the ability to sustainably meet customer requirements, using fewer resources and shorter lead times (Piroozfar et al., 2019). In summary, a mass customisable housing industry could be achieved if the products and services are parametrically defined (i.e., specifying the dimensions, constraints, and relationships between the various components), interactively designed (via a website or an app), digitally fabricated, visualised and evaluated to automatically generate production and assembly data (Kolarevic, 2015). However, for MC to be integrated effectively in the AEC industry, several challenges remain that range from cultural, behavioural and management changes, to technological such as the use of ICTs or those directly applied to the manufacturing process, as for example automating the production and assembly methods, the use of product configurators or managing the variety through the product supply chain (Piroozfar et al., 2019). [1] Sato PlusHome. ArkOpen / Esko Kahri, Petri Viita and Juhani Väisänen (http://www.open-building.org/conference2011/Project_PlusHome.pdf) [2] The Modern Modular. Resolution: 4 Architecture (https://www.re4a.com/the-modern-modular)

Created on 06-07-2022 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Design for Disassembly

Author: A.Davis (ESR1)

Area: Design, planning and building

Design for Disassembly (DfD), also referred to as Design for Deconstruction or Construction in Reverse, is the design and planning of the future disassembly of a building, in addition to its assembly (Cruz Rios & Grau, 2019). Disassembly enables the non-destructive recovery of building materials to re-introduce resources back into the supply chain, either for the same function or as a new product. Designing buildings for their future disassembly can reduce both the consumption of new raw materials and the negative environmental impacts associated with the production of new building products, such as embodied carbon. DfD is considered the “ultimate cradle-to-cradle cycle strategy” (Smith, 2010, p.222) that has the potential to maximise the economic value of materials whilst minimising harmful environmental impacts. It is therefore a crucial technical design consideration that supports the transition to a Circular Economy. Additional benefits include increased flexibility and adaptability, optimised maintenance, and retention of heritage (Rios et al., 2015). DfD is based on design principles such as: standardised and interchangeable components and connections, use of non-composite products, dry construction methods, use of prefabrication, mechanical connections as opposed to glues and wet sealants, designing with safety and accessibility in mind, and documentation of materials and methods for disassembly (Crowther, 2005; Guy & Ciarimboli, 2008; Tingley & Davison, 2011). DfD shares commonality with Industrialised Construction, which often centres around off-site prefabrication. Industrialising the production of housing can therefore be more environmentally sustainable and financially attractive if building parts are produced at scale and pre-designed to be taken apart without destroying connecting parts. Disassembly plays an important role in the recovery of building materials based on the 3Rs principle (reduce, reuse, recycle) during the maintenance, renovation, relocation and reassembly, and the end-of-life phases of a building. Whilst a building is in use, different elements are expected to be replaced at the end of their service life, which varies depending on its function. For example, the internal layout of a building changes at a different rate to the building services, and the disassembly of these parts would therefore take place at different points in time. Brand’s (1994) Shearing Layers concept incorporates this time aspect by breaking down a building into six layers, separating the “site”, “structure”, “skin” (building envelope), “services”, “space plan”, and “stuff” (furniture) to account for their varying lifespans. DfD enables the removal, replacement, and reuse of materials throughout the service life of a building, extending it use phase for as long as possible. However, there is less guarantee that a building will be disassembled at the end of its service life, rather than destructively demolished and sent to landfill.

Created on 18-10-2023 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Industrialised Construction

Author: C.Martín (ESR14), A.Davis (ESR1)

Area: Design, planning and building

Industrialised Construction, also referred to as Modern Methods of Construction in the UK (Ministry of Housing, 2019) and Conceptueel Bouwen (Conceptual Building) in the Netherlands (NCB, n.d.), is a broad and dynamic term encompassing innovative techniques and processes that are transforming the construction industry (Lessing, 2006; Smith & Quale, 2017). It is a product-based approach that reinforces continuous improvement, rather than a project-based one, and emphasises the use of standardised components and systems to improve build quality and achieve sustainability goals (Kieran & Timberlake, 2004). Industrialised Construction can be based on using a kit-of parts and is often likened to a LEGO set, as well as the automotive industry's assembly line and lean production. Industrialisation in the construction sector presents a paradigm shift, driven by advancements in technology (Bock & Linner, 2015). It involves both off-site and on-site processes, with a significant portion occurring in factory-controlled conditions (Andersson & Lessing, 2017). Off-site construction entails the prefabrication of building components manufactured using a combination of two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional (3D), and hybrid methods, where traditional construction techniques meet cutting-edge technologies such as robotic automation. Industrialised construction is not limited to off-site production, it also encompasses on-site production, including the emerging use of 3D printing or the deployment of temporary or mobile factories. Industrialised Construction increasingly leverages digital and industry 4.0 technologies, such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), Internet of Things, big data, and predictive analysis (Qi et al., 2021). These processes and digital tools enable accurate planning, simulation, and optimisation of construction processes, resulting in enhanced productivity, quality, and resource management. It is important to stress that Industrialised Construction is not only about the physical construction methods, but also the intangible processes involved in the design and delivery of buildings. Industrialised construction offers several benefits across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. From an economic perspective, it reduces construction time and costs in comparison to traditional methods, while providing safer working conditions and eliminates delays due to adverse weather. By employing standardisation and efficient manufacturing processes, it enables affordable and social housing projects to be delivered in a shorter timeframe through economies of scale (Frandsen, 2017). On the social front, Industrialised Construction can enable mass customisation and customer-centric approaches, to provide more flexible solutions while maintaining economic feasibility (Piller, 2004). From an environmental standpoint, industrialised construction minimises waste generation during production by optimising material usage and facilitates the incorporation of Design for Disassembly (Crowther, 2005) and the potential reusability of building elements, promoting both flexibility and a Circular Economy (EC, 2020). This capability aligns with the principles of cradle-to-cradle design, wherein materials and components are continuously repurposed to reduce resource depletion and waste accumulation. Challenges remain in terms of overcoming misconceptions and gaining social acceptance, the slow digital transformation of the construction industry, high factory set-up costs, the lack of interdisciplinary integration of stakeholders from the initial stages, and adapting to unconventional workflows. However, Industrialised Construction will undoubtedly shape the future of the built environment, providing solutions for the increasing demand for sustainable and affordable housing (Bertram et al., 2019).

Created on 09-11-2023 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Flexibility

Author: C.Martín (ESR14)

Area: Design, planning and building

Flexibility is defined as the ability and potential of a building to change, adapt, and rearrange itself in response to evolving needs and patterns, both in social and technological terms (Schneider & Till, 2007). Additionally, a flexible building can maximise its value throughout its lifecycle, reducing the need for demolition and new construction by becoming resilient to market demands (Schmidt III et al., 2010). When applied to housing, flexibility ensures that homes can respond to the volatility of dwelling needs. Changes in household occupancy impact space requirements, but these changes, such as variations in family size, structure, or lifestyle, are unpredictable and uncontrollable. Only a flexible housing system can effectively respond to both foreseeable and unforeseeable changes (Estaji, 2017). The concept of flexibility emerged during the modern movement, linked to the idea of the 'open plan,' which was stimulated by new construction technologies in the 1920s (Montaner et al., 2019). Decades later, theories about building flexibility and transformation by John Habraken and Yona Friedman encouraged the theory of supports and the experimentation with growing megastructures. The idea of Open Building is tightly linked to the concept of flexibility, as it advocates that everything except the structure and some circulation elements can be transformable through differentiating levels of intervention, distributing control, and encouraging user participation (Habraken, 1961). Many architects have argued that buildings should outlast their initial functions, emphasising the importance of flexibility to meet new housing demands. More recently, the works of Lacaton & Vassal highlight that flexibility should be achieved through the generosity of space. They believe that confined spaces for living, working, studying, or leisure inhibit freedom of use and movement, preventing any potential for evolution. Therefore, they are in favour of providing much larger spaces, which through their flexibility, can be appropriated for various uses in private, public, and intermediate contexts (Lacaton & Vassal, 2017). The term flexibility should not be confused with adaptability, although they are often used synonymously in literature. Flexibility is the capability to allow different physical arrangements, while adaptability implies the capacity of a space to accommodate different social uses (Groak, 1996). Adaptability is attained by designing rooms or units to serve multiple purposes without making physical changes. This is achieved through the organisation of rooms, the indeterminate designation of spaces, and the design of circulation patterns, providing spatial polyvalency as seen in the Diagoon Houses by Herman Hertzberger. This de-hierarchisation of spaces allows the dwelling to serve various purposes without needing alterations to its original construction. More recently, this approach has facilitated the development of gender-neutral housing solutions, as seen in the 85 dwellings in Cornellà by Peris + Toral Arquitectes or the 110 Rooms by MAIO, making domestic tasks visible and encouraging the participation of all household members. Flexibility, on the other hand, is achieved by modifying the building's physical components, such as combining rooms or units, often using sliding or folding walls and furniture. A paradigmatic example of this flexibility is the Schröder House by Gerrit Thomas Rietveld in 1924. These changes can be either temporary or permanent, allowing the same space to meet different needs. Embedded flexibility in a building would allow for the partitionability, multi-functionality, and extendibility of spatial units in a simple way, meeting additional user demands (Geraedts, 2008). In relation to affordable and sustainable housing, flexibility plays a key role. “A sustainable building is not one that must last forever, but one that can easily adapt to change” (Graham, 2005). Implementing flexibility strategies can lead to efficient use of resources by designing housing that can be reconfigured as needs change, minimising the environmental footprint in the long term by avoiding early demolition. Incorporating Design for Disassembly practices would ease the adaptation of spaces and the circularity of building components, improving the building’s lifespan (Crowther, 2005). This approach also facilitates the incorporation of energy-efficient technologies and sustainable materials, reducing the operational costs of housing and enhancing affordability. Nevertheless, regulatory and societal challenges remain. Overcoming strict building standards, which often dictate room sizes and follow a hierarchical distribution of dwellings, has proven to be a significant challenge for the development of alternative and more flexible housing solutions. However, transdisciplinary collaboration among housing authorities, developers, architects, and users has shown to be highly effective in achieving high degrees of flexibility in both technical and regulatory aspects, as demonstrated in Patch 22 in Amsterdam.

Created on 19-06-2024 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Related cases

Patch22

Created on 05-12-2023

A response to environmental and economic challenges The initiators of Patch22, architect Tom Frantzen and building manager Claus Oussoren, aimed at achieving together what they couldn’t manage in previous commissions independently: an oversized wooden structure characterised by flexibility, distinctive architecture, and a strong commitment to sustainability. They established the development company Lemniskade Projects to pursue their goals (Frantzen et al architecten, 2017). Winning the Amsterdam Buiksloterham Sustainability tender in 2009, Patch22 was not only recognised for its exceptional sustainability scores but also for its innovative circular design approach and its capability to adapt to unforeseen future uses. The project's primary objectives were rooted in environmental sustainability, employing renewable and reusable materials, particularly wood for the main structure and facade. Embracing Open Building principles, Patch22 sought maximum flexibility in dwelling sizes and layouts, offering an ingenious response to the environmental and economic challenges outlined in the tender (Kendall, 2021). The 30-meter-tall wooden structure currently hosts 33 dwellings with diverse sizes ranging from 40 m² to 204 m². The building promotes long-term adaptability, as it is prepared to be easily subdivided into six independent office floors or a maximum of 48 apartments (Frantzen, 2023). This showcases how a single support structure can serve multiple generations, accommodating the dynamic needs of its users while addressing some of the current environmental challenges such as material waste, the construction industry’s carbon footprint or the implementation of design for disassembly practices. A flexible and adaptable building A flexibility of a building can be enhanced when traditional architectural elements are reassessed. Various strategies were employed to maximize the adaptability of use, layout design, and apartment sizes: No load-bearing division walls The timber laminated post and beam structure, in combination with lightweight division walls, became crucial to ensure size variations between apartments and a greater freedom of choice in defining the layouts. Additionally, by superimposing the residential and office regulations, introducing a generous floor height of 4 m, and structurally supporting floor loads of 4 KN, the building accommodates the potential for entirely or partially utilising residential spaces for office purposes (Frantzen et al architecten, 2017). No vertical shafts inside the apartment In conventional housing, meter cabinets, kitchens, and bathrooms have typically been constructed near vertical shafts to minimise the length of the drains. When developing Patch22, it was unknown which units would merge to form a single apartment, making it challenging to position the vertical shafts. Two shafts were integrated into the structural core, with pre-installed drains, water and electricity conduits running up to each front door, from where they could be extended to the desired location in an apartment (Council on Open Building, 2023). Hollow floors to run services horizontally Patch22 adopts a horizontal services distribution, a common practice in office buildings. The necessary inclination of a toilet drain from the central shaft to the outermost corner of the building results in a floor build-up increase to 50cm. This available space for conduits enables the placement of kitchens and bathrooms anywhere within the dwelling. This departure from the traditional clustering of humid spaces in residential buildings facilitates the creation of multiple floor layouts that respond to the users’ needs. No meters inside the apartment By relocating the heavily regulated meters and main switches to the ground floor and placing the non-regulated secondary fuse boxes at each level, Patch22 provides open spaces which can be subdivided in multiple ways (Frantzen, 2023). The independence of the meters from the dwellings streamlines future adaptations with minimal disruptions to the individual living spaces. Smaller subdivision of legal entities From a technical perspective, designing a flexible and adaptable building is feasible. But it is also necessary to provide the legal mechanisms that make it possible. In the case of Patch22, each floor contains 8 legal units that can be combined horizontally or vertically (Frantzen, 2023). Although, in its current state, most floors have 3-6 dwellings per flight, these legal units could be divided or merged, sold, or rented independently, used as office or as residential spaces. Designing for the unknown Embracing the philosophy advocated by Habraken (OpenBuilding.co, 2023), Patch22 prioritises designing for the unknown. Strategies include over-dimensioning the structure, simultaneous compliance with diverse regulations for different uses, incorporating extra entrance doors, and providing space for additional mailboxes. These approaches keep the design open for future changes, ensuring long-term adaptability. A sustainable proposal Patch22 embodies sustainability across multiple dimensions. Environmentally, the building achieves sustainability through a series of strategies: improving energy efficiency, using renewable materials, and fostering layout flexibility. The 2009 design garnered a GPR score of 8.9 and an EPC of 0.2, showcasing its commitment to sustainable practices. The roof, covered with photovoltaic panels, makes the building energy-neutral, while the rainwater collection feeds into a grey water system. The adoption of CO2-neutral pellet stoves, utilising compressed waste wood as fuel, further underlines Patch22’s commitment to eco-friendly energy sources (Frantzen et al architecten, 2017). Despite the challenges posed by fire and acoustic regulations, the building boldly features wood as its main material, with additional thickness added to columns and beams to comply with safety standards. This decision, although increasing costs, remains more economical than the alternative solution of building with 2D CLT panels (Frantzen, 2023). Additionally, the emphasis on long-term layout flexibility aligns with environmental sustainability by reducing waste during future adaptations and facilitating component disassembly. From a social standpoint, involving residents in the design process fostered diversity and strengthened the sense of belonging. Finally, the economic sustainability of Patch22 is evident in its adaptable support, serving as a long-term investment that evolves with changing needs, potentially acquiring different uses over time, benefitting both the planet and the economic interests of its users. Construction characteristics The support components, encompassing the structure, façade, and core of Patch22, are highly prefabricated, facilitating a swift and precise assembly process on-site while minimising waste and reducing disruptions. The structure incorporates over-dimensioned laminated wooden beams and columns, along with vertical core constructed with prefabricated concrete panels (Open Building NOW!, 2020). The NW and SE façades employ CLT panels with a thickness of 220mm, while the NE and SW orientations, serving as the main facades, create loggias on both sides. The loggia's interior façade features modulated sliding doors with CLT prefabricated frames, allowing for the free placement of interior partitions by strategically positioning mullions every 3 meters (Frantzen, 2023). Externally, the loggia is characterised by redwood truss beams with bolted connections to steel joints which facilitate their future disassembly. These buffer zones can be fully enclosed with glazed modular panels in winter or left open with a fixed handrail during the summer. The floor plays a pivotal role in leveraging the flexibility of the apartments within the structure. Employing a Slimline structural flooring system made of IPE 400 steel profiles and a 70mm reinforced concrete slab below, this design allows services to run efficiently within the hollow floor, reaching even the most remote corners of each apartment. After installing drains and other facilities, the floor is topped with an acoustic membrane, a Lewis profile sheet, and 8cm of anhydrite screed with underfloor heating. While initially considering demountable top floor tiles, this solution was deemed complex and expensive compared to the anhydrite screed, which proved more cost-effective and flexible (Frantzen, 2023). By planning in advance for the placement of maintenance registration points to the floor cavity, it was possible to enable access for the necessary alterations while maintaining practicality and affordability. User customisation process The customisation process at Patch22 began with a search for prospective residents through social media, leveraging it as a platform to connect with individuals interested in actively designing their living spaces in collaboration. Once on board, residents were presented with the opportunity to shape their homes within an entirely empty interior. A catalogue of multiple variations was offered by the architects, allowing some residents to select a pre-designed option that suited their preferences. Alternatively, others opted for a more collaborative approach, working closely with Frantzen architects to create a custom layout. Some residents took an independent venue, either designing their dwellings themselves or hiring another architect to develop their interiors (Frantzen, 2023). Throughout the process, Frantzen provided comprehensive guidance on the technical requirements, ensuring compliance with fire and soundproofing regulations. Residents could choose to have the base installations in the floor installed by the main contractor or to receive the bare shell and install them themselves. This inclusive approach allowed residents to actively contribute to the unique character of Patch22 while ensuring the resiliency of the building support for future generations.

C.Martín. ESR14

Read more ->

Related publications

Relational graph

Case Study

Concept

Publication

Blogposts