Domestic Dreams, Uncanny Urbanity | Bachelors Design Project on Urban Housing

Site Context

Situated on the outskirts of Lisbon, Portugal, the site reflects a challenging combination of large transportation arteries and diverse housing typologies. In order to comply with site conditions, a BUFFER between the proposed housing development and the railway located to the south of the site was necessary. The public spaces to the north, on the other hand, are full of activities (parks, schools, libraries), which calls for more open urban interaction.

The project’s main element is the housing, which is broken up into flexible units that can house one to eight people. In addition to these housing units, the brief called for the inclusion of ground-level public space, a gym, a library, bike storage, a work-live space, and rooftop greenhouses/gardens in addition to workspaces and shared areas between units.

Design Process

The design process started with a case study analysis of MAIO’s “110 rooms, 22 dwellings,” which led to a number of analysis diagrams that highlighted the formal aspects of MAIO’s approach to collective housing.

Projective design emerged from a sequence of drawings and imaginative modelling attempts. A conceptual unit model at ¼”=1′ scale, which was used to test various unit configurations, was the key element of this process. Before being transformed into an end result, the ground floor, housing, buffer, and rooftop were all designed independently based on specific criteria. The site was crucial to each of these steps, and design choices were often based on the “semantic site plan,” which both spatialized the site’s requirements and contingencies and served as a framework for construction. 

A number of representations were used in the last stages of design development, including façade/interior collages, occupied axonometrics, and a physical model (1/4″=1′; 1:50). These final stages were crucial for the façade and rooftop garden. The physical model is the tool used for most of the detailing in the design process, in addition to being the best representation of the work and built object.

Final Outcome

The FRAMEWORK is made up of multilevel units arranged around gallery and free levels. The structural components of each unit are housed on the gallery level, which frees up an entire floor for flexible contingency. Spaces between units become shared and circulation spaces, with shared facilities located on the gallery levels and shared living space located between the free levels.

The MID-RISE units are placed between the public programme and interaction areas. The ground floor features a daycare facility, bike storage and athletic facilities that open up to the central courtyard. The stairways that mediate the connection between the courtyard and urban fabric above the athletic gym, library, and commercial space break up the clear story, enabling the mid-rise to function as a porous buffer. A series of greenhouses encompass mechanical enclosures on the roof.

A live-work unit structure to the south creates a hard BUFFER to separate the mid-rise and court from the nearby railway’s noise. This buffer is recessed into the ground, allowing the structure to fold around the railroad track and reflect noise away from the mid-rise and court. It also mediates topological separation. The lower level of the buffer is a flexible fabric of workspaces and dividers, receiving light from windows directed above the train tracks. To the north of the lower level are studio units that share facilities and look out over the work area.

This FRAMEWORK alone does not provide the flexible basis on which a cooperative and decentralized urban fabric operate, necessitating infill and subdivision. Therefore, in order to accommodate evolving family structures and rising housing demand, the free floors that were previously available for impromptu and flexible activity can be modified in more permanent ways. The cooperative is in charge of and is building this INFILL. 

Following scheme selection, a contractor creates the structural elements of the bathrooms and storage, and both the cooperative and individual residents are free to customize the units in accordance with a core set of guidelines. Simple wood-framed walls and prefabricated facade elements would make up this construction.

Conclusion: The infilled framework would eventually acquire dynamism and contingency, akin to the complex lives that its occupants lead. Both the public and private spaces would start to resemble an UNCANNY URBANITY. Something brought about through the collective aspirations of its constituents… through DOMESTIC DREAMS.

[This Academic Project has been published with text submitted by the student]