Johan Alvfors
Handledare/
Professor Anders Wilhelmsson
Supervisor
Universitetslektor Tor Lindstrand
Universitetsadjunkt Erik Wingquist
Examinator/
Prodekan Anders Johansson
Examiner
Examensarbete inom arkitektur, avancerad nivå 30 hp
Degree Project in Architecture, Second Level 30 credits
5 june 2014
”Omnyttja det ouppskattade”
”Repurposing the unwanted”
- 300 temporary apartments in Marievik
Johan Alvfors: Repurposing the Unwanted - 300 temporary appartments in Marievik (degree project). Studio #2, supervised by Anders Wilhelmsson, Tor Lindstrand and Erik Wingquist. Contact: johan@alvfors.se, +46 (0) 730-50 37 72 A 1980’s office block is threatened with
demolition, leaving space for high-end housing. Through presenting decision-makers with a choice and demanding ac-tion, I suggest a new future for this un-wanted architecture.
The 32.000 sq m building is turned into 300 temporary rental apartments, fol-lowing a strong structural logic to keep investment low. The found structure is used as a tool for contrasting the main-stream housing development of today, caring for urban diversity, ecology and coexistence.
The thesis project investigates if and how the repurposing of structures not meant for residential use into apartments can be a tool to challenge accelerating segre-gation.
SITE: MARIEVIK
Established as Stockholm’s first suburb in the 1860’s, workers’ housing and residen-tial shacks sprung up in Årstadal, provid-ing the industries in Liljeholmen with la-bour. In 1928, as the new Årsta bridge lead the main railway north of the area, many industries moved, and the housing fell into disrepair. Lighter industries gradually took over. In 1980, the big regeneration into an office district began in Marievik, while Årstadal remained industrial for 20
more years.
PROPERTY: MARIEVIK 15
The first house built in the regeneration, on the site of old railway workshops, was Marievik 15 and as such it bears a strong symbolic value. It was commissioned by the biggest Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter - not for the paper’s operation, but for leasing. At the time, this was a new kind of property development. Ini-tially the plans were all open, the internal structure has been added to meet every tenant’s needs. Although planned for mixed office and light industry, produc-tion was quickly replaced by just bureau. This typology still influences our under-standing of offices.
The building also has a high architectural value, classified by the city as culturally valuable. Anders Berg’s and Erik Thelaus’ creation was one of the very first in high-tech architecture, mixing modernism while meeting the demands of the en-ergy crisis.
As of today, the property owner is a sub-sidiary to a big pension insurance compa-ny, whose primary interest is to get high return on invested capital.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND CRITIQUE As a new wave of demolishing sweep Stockholm, precious post-modern office architecture like Marievik 15 are replaced
by high-end condominiums. This is also the case here: As office leasing is getting less profitable, the demand for housing in attractive locations rise. The property owner has started working on a scheme including 300 apartments and some shops in a new building.
This is problematic given what happens in the area. In just eight years, the area south of Marievik has been developed with high-end housing of the same type, now putting pressure on the post-mod-ern office area. The 3000 apartments in Årstadal has been developed all by the same company, spreading its monotone urban fabric. There is a strong conform-ism as to what an attractive residential situation is, helping to drive a commodi-fication of housing. This development makes every other aspect of the city ex-cept the private sphere secondary. Not much can be known for certain about what architecture will be considered at-tractive in public opinion tomorrow. What we do know is that all architecture passes through a phase of unwanted-ness, and that urban diversity and com-plexity is appreciated, and that earlier waves of demolition have always been heavily criticised. It seems we are blind to the qualities of one architectural era at the time - and today, we lack appreciation for houses like Marievik 15. Demolishing it would be an inconsequent blow to values yet to be realized.
Demolishing is also problematic from an ecological perspective. The building is only 30 years old, holds high techni-cal standard and has few problems. Just demolishing the approximately 20.000 cubic meters of concrete it contains is an extreme loss of energy and raw material.
This project is about saving this valuable puzzle piece for the future city. I must convince decision-makers to deny the change in the masterplan needed for the redevelopment. Given that the building is saved, however, a permit for repurposing can be granted. This means putting the public opinion and will of the property owner aside for the respect of qualities yet unknown.
For the property owner, this decision would mean a loss of expected profit. Thus, too save the building for a future where its qualities are once again wanted and as such profitable, I search for a way of getting a reasonably profitable tem-porary use. I argue that this is done best through temporary, high density rental apartments.
The layout of the office building puts con-straints on the type of apartments possi-ble, guaranteeing that the outcome will increase urban diversity also structurally. I can fit 300 apartments into the building - just as many as the developer wanted. In order to balance financial interest in the privately owned city, the democratic power needs to be presented with an al-ternative future. We must not miss this possibility of empowering the public, tak-ing over initiatives for the future city. My conclusion of the thesis project is twofold: that society have strong tools to counter segregation if there is political will, even without changing the economi-cal logic of architecture and building, and that the time of the architect student, who can spend time researching such possibilities is important and should be spent challenging the possible.
ABSTRACT:
REPURPOSING THE UNWANTED
Segregation in Stockholm (income distribution) What can names tell us about segregation?
CAN AN ARCHITECT DO ANYTHING ABOUT SEGREGATION?
This thesis work started out with one question: will I as an architect be able to do anything about segregation? This question, of course, depend on what you consider an archi-tect to be. An archiarchi-tect, just like any other person, can work politically for change, both through personal activism and through organizations. But that aside, in the narrow sense of an architect being someone who design environments that are to be built: is it possible to draw something build-able (that is, not profitbuild-able but economically and socially possible), that can help stop segregation?
I started out by analysing segregation, focusing on two main factors of interest for urban planning: income distri-bution and social security. Those two parameters are major hurdles to coexistence on today’s housing market. The analysis of segregation in this project is inspired by readings, mainly of sociologic text. I need to start here, be-cause it is inequality that should be confronted, not only the resulting physical structures. The main source of inspiration I found in Fronesis nr 42-43 (red Elin Grelsson Almestad, Da-lia Mukhtar-Landgren, Olav Fumarola Unsgaard), describ-ing housdescrib-ing and inequality in a Swedish context. The book stresses how the hollowing of the concept of housing as a social right through political withdrawal from responsibility for housing supply has sparked a massive commodification of housing - a perfect seedbed for increased segregation.
In Guy Standing “The Precariat - the new dangerous class”, these ideas are confirmed on an international level, clarify-ing the links and gaps between income distribution, precar-ity and possibilities in life.
However, segregation is inherently complex, because it oc-curs in the grey zone between our freedom and the hurdles to our freedom that are forced upon us through socioeco-nomic structures. One such example is our tendency to live close to people that are similar to us, even when there are nothing that forces us to do so. That is why a project aiming at physical solutions to segregation must look further than sociology.
A helpful approach is seeing segregation as the stratifica-tion of city areas, where differences between inhabitants in terms of socioeconomic factors can be seen on neighbour-hood scale rather than within the neighbourneighbour-hood. That means that the goal is a city that allows for differences on a small scale.
However, these differences needs to be achieved through the creation by equal but different alternatives. That is, we cannot achieve differences by using the socioeconomic dif-ferences, i.e. building with a lower standard for those who cannot afford the normative housing of the area. The key lies in that while “difference” is objective, “equal” is subjec-tive and depends on the norms. How can we translate equal
but different opportunities into structures that are unequal from the viewpoint of the housing market?
This is why the value conformity of the housing market. If we strive for diversity as the opposite of segregation, it is troubling that the market find it rational to be selling the same kind of housing, the same kind of life style, every-where.
One aspect of commodification of living space as the re-placement of the right to housing, as well as the new hous-ing-political goals that stipulates that a “well-functioning” housing market is the sole success factor, is the conform-ism taking place on this market. New living patterns, a big-ger housing stock and better communications affects and drives the development.
On the condominium market, the mechanism is quite natu-ral: we want a place to sell in the first place, living in it is sec-ondary. Newly produced houses tap into the mechanism by addressing socioeconomic groups that are the most profit-able. This discrimination results in conformism reproduced. In rented apartments, the system is not that obvious but discrimination still takes place by turning to those that can pay for higher standard and better situation through the rent.
Diversity is not natural, it needs to be created actively. Also, the commonplace image of diversity (that is, coexistence of differents) is more diverse than often reality. The imagined, full diversity is a utopian notion, worth striving for but never to be fully realized. But people are different, and live differ-ent - and we are affected by buildings/environmdiffer-ents. How do people, buildings and the legal and social rules that surrounds them change and adapt to one another? When someone moves into a new place, there is a gap between the habit of living and what the space permits. This gap is a cost to the person, who will start to adapt to minimize those costs. First, by finding new ways of using the space that does not change personal habits. Slowly, habits will adjust. Only if the cost of changing habits are bigger than those of challenging the physical structure, the building will be changed. Thus, in a given time frame, people change gradually and structures in steps. Social norms are like peo-ple, while technical law democratically decided also works in steps.
So, people have to adapt their differences. From this per-spective, conformism could be seen as the inability of the market to cater for all those differences, providing “some-thing for everyone”. Production rationality stands against this of course, and the lower cost the high exchangeability leads to. Both architects and the market build their illusions
Models of the new neighbourhoods of Stockholm, from top left Norra djurgårdsstaden, Marievik, Norra stationsområdet och Västra Kungsholmen (models by the city museum) New apartments in Marievik
about how living works, rarely with enough contact with the complex reality, adding another layer of resistance to a better fit.
Natural diversity is impossible to achieve, and imitated di-versity by sampling different locations etc. is usually closer. Trying to do this is important also for segregation. Those al-ready accustomed the kind of living promoted will do better. The further this inequality goes, the deeper is the conform-ism hole dug among the remaining possible alternatives.
STRATEGIES FOR THE PROJECT
I sketched three different strategies for answering my ques-tion:
1) Rejecting drawing something planned to be built, I could spend the time of the thesis work as a critic and debater with a propagandistic approach. Through telling about a parallel reality/vision and emphasizing problems and preju-dice in architecture, I can change not the physical environ-ment but the political, maybe with consequences for future building.
2) By deepening the analysis of segregation and the hous-ing market, I could search for a rational way of challenghous-ing the “system”, and maybe draw something that could work as “grit in the machinery”, something that logically could
still feasible within the system, still possible to build. The project should be presented as a political alternative, an option open if the intention would be to achieve a city less commodified and segregated. The explanation of what the project could achieve if built will still be theoretical, but at the same time generalizable.
CHOOSING SITE
In order to draw something, a piece that stops housing seg-regation, I need a site. The choice of site is a delicate ques-tion: when the target is segregation, the question easily be-come a critique of a specific group instead of a place. Who should move where? I choose to solve this by looking at the way Stockholm is growing.
For the first time in many decades, Stockholm is growing faster. The political decisions about the housing potential of the city and the new vision for Stockholm’s growth - “Prom-enadstaden” - point out a new way of building that goes together with trust in the housing market.
Except the small puzzle pieces added as fill ins in the city fabric, some new areas with a more holistic approach has been added to the city edges. It is not the way of build-ing that is new: big uniform blocks built at the same time, much more like the modernist suburbs that anyone want to admit. Together, the areas are planned for around 25 000 have consequences for segregation.
3) The last alternative is to “just draw something”, and then discuss what it will mean with regards to segregation. Since I wanted to focus not on the architect’s role as a poli-tician but on what is drawn (still acknowledging this role might be the most important part of an architects work), strategy one was ruled out. The risk with strategy two is that there might be no way to skew the system, because you have to work on the terms of the system. That brings me back to strategy one. Strategy three, on the other hand, is that I may miss the goal, drawing something that might be possible but that only increases diversity on the fringe, not really challenging the core of segregation. Additionally, the consequences will only be theoretical and local, without rationality or replicability.
It turns out, I need a combination of the strategies. I need to involve political decisions, since they are crucial to all building and to some extent can control economy. Secondly, I need the idea of something that can challenge the system generally - but this small “stone” needs to be deeply rooted in the context.
That means that strategy three is the core of this project. I will draw housing for people that are absurd enough to break with conformity both economically and socially, but
apartments.
The difference is instead the locations of these areas and how this is communicated. None of them are thought like new areas in their own right. They are all intended exten-sions of downtown. They are mostly condominiums, sold long before they where built. But most prominently - the city as a democratic organisation had nothing to do with the construction. This was all built not as new places in soci-ety, but as products to buy. This create a different logic from planning level to the materials in the bathrooms.
The areas have been branded extensively by contractors and the municipality respectively. A brief glance on this propa-ganda tells a story of individualism and luxury in various shapes. The middle class buy the housing, maybe believing in the stories. Because of the economic mechanisms, the ar-eas are segregated right from the start.
In addition to the general increasing inequality, these areas are the way segregation is built in Stockholm today. These areas all share something else than their future typology: they hold industries and office buildings from the late mod-ernist and early post modern times. Most prominently, of-fice buildings from the 1980’s are being demolished to give way to the new city. I decided to use such an iconic example, Marievik 15 in Liljeholmen, as a tool for creating an alterna-tive story about the future of these areas.
MARIEVIK 15 seen from Liljeholmen bridge
MARIEVIK 15 - A THREATENED PART OF FUTURE DIVERSITY As a new wave of demolitions sweeps through Stock-holm, fine examples of post modern office architec-ture is sacrificed for the doubtful benefit of specula-tive building of co-operaspecula-tive apartments. The plans for the property Marievik 15 in Stockholm neighbourhood Liljeholmen are typical for this development. Why is it, that we in a time with a very conservative outlook on ur-ban planning, knock down buildings only 30 years old?
The late 70’s is an interesting time in the history of cities. The energy crisis and the decline of the modernist para-digm led to doubt about the methods of the day, and ar-chitecture seeks new paths. Simultaneously the economy is changing. Speculative building of privately owned of-fice buildings increases dramatically, which profoundly changes the idea about workplace and business premises. That was the context for the origin of Marievik 15: a first step in the renewal of the city district that was then an industrial zone. Architects Anders Berg and Erik Thelaus created a completely new type of office building for na-tional newspaper Dagens Nyheter and investment com-pany Custos. The novelty lay in the fact that the house
was never meant for the companies themselves, but for leasing. Premises created not for a specific business was a forward-thinking concept that met the demands of its time, and it still influences our idea of the office build-ing where generality and flexibility are the two central values. Marievik 15 was the first of its kind in Sweden. Marievik 15 has been classified by the Stockholm City Museum as a building of high heritage value from a cul-tural point of view. However, not only the real estate his-tory is worth protecting. The design of the building itself holds many qualities. After the changes to late modern-ism brought about by the energy crisis, Berg and The-laus were looking for a new identity, using high quality materials, precision in detail and a rich design language. It is a house built to last, and is one of the best exam-ples of so-called high-tech architecture, which in many of its features prefigures the post modernism of the 80’s. Despite the high cultural value, the city of Stockholm is work-ing on demolition plans. The property owner AMF Fastigheter, whose primal purpose is far from safeguarding the city en-vironment but rather to raise capital in pension funds for its
controlling company AMF, has investigated alternatives for the property. The most profitable, it turns out, is to demol-ish and develop 300 co-operative apartments in its place. The Urban Planning Committee are sympathetic because it means more housing to help mitigate the housing crisis – but ignores that the plans violates several of their poli-cies. The strange thing is not that a house that is current-ly out of fashion is less profitable and it threatened with demolition, but that all parties are so short-sighted when it comes to something as long-lasting as urban development. What urban qualities that will be esteemed in the fu-ture are hard to predict, and even more so how they will be conceived 30 years from now. Trends in urban design keeps coming one after another. However, it is certain that diversity and historical complexity is always appre-ciated. If we get rid of the buildings that will become the pearls of tomorrow just because they are not remunera-tive today, we will undermine the idea of the city as lay-ers of ideas that forms a compound rather than a whole. Many of the business buildings of the 80’s where build with
the same flexible structure as Marievik 15. That means there are alternatives to destruction. By repurposing the existing structure, it would be possible to create around 300 apart-ments – the same number of new homes, though less prof-itable, than the expensive and energy demanding demoli-tion and new construcdemoli-tion would bring. Both in Stockholm and internationally there are many examples of how such repurposing can be carried out, keeping both the quali-ties of the structure and adding to the diversity of the city. In democratic forums and with the help of our elected rep-resentatives we can turn the development. It is as simple as denying the contractors a new building permit. Politicians must dare to stand against the interest of the property own-ers and put the interest of the public first. The arguments for keeping the building are not nostalgic or even based on cultural history, but on what we know about how we create a rich urban environment. In the long term there are no win-ners on the short-sightedness of property development and a transformation of Marievik into an area where all houses are from the same decade. In a time when the architec-tures of the 80’s have few friends, it is even more important with forward-thinking and responsible political decisions.
South facade towards Liljeholmen
The scale of the building is handled by breaking it down into smaller volumes. The facade clearly shows the constructive elements, but presents the joints as ornaments.
View from the seventh floor along the water. The inside of the L-block has a facade of stainless steel, reflecting the view of Södermalm to the tower block.
The industrial scale of the communication spaces in the building is important to the repurposing. The office floors are mostly empty and evacuated.
AMF AMF AMF AMF AMF AMF AMF AMF RENT RENT RENT RENT JM JM JM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM ABD ABD ABD ABD ABD RENT CM PUB PUB PUB PUB PUB PUB PUB AMF PROPERTIES ABERDEEN PROPERTIES JM, PROPERTY DEVELOPER
VARIOUS PUBLIC/MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP CONDEMONIUMS
RENTAL APPARTMENTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SITE: MARIEVIK
Marievik is currently an area with two strands. In the east, the property developer JM have developed a well-delimited housing area with mostly their own co-op apartments. This was possible through an unusually acquisition of land in the former industry zone. In the west, the office buildings from the 80’s cling on to the land between the water and the bridge to central Stockholm, which separates Marievik from Liljeholmen south of the road.
4 Ö Ä Z X W V T S R P N MM M L K KK J H G F E D C B A Ö Ä Z W T R N L J H G F E D C B A 6 10 13 16 19 22 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 34 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 24 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 FLAT 08: 56 m2 3 rooms FLAT 09: 78 m2 3 rooms FLAT 10: 128 m2 5 rooms FLAT 11: 56 m2 3 rooms FLAT 12: 59 m2 2 rooms FLAT 13: 56 m2 3 rooms FLAT 14: 56 m2 2 rooms FLAT 15: 57 m2 3 rooms FLAT 16: 65 m2 4 rooms FLAT 17: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 18: 44 m2 2 rooms FLAT 19: 65 m2 5 rooms FLAT 20: 32 m2 2 rooms FLAT 21: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 22: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 23: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 24: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 25: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 26: 60 m2 4 rooms FLAT 27: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 28: 69 m2 3 rooms FLAT 29: 64m2 3 rooms FLAT 30: 31 m2 2 rooms FLAT 31: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 43: 49 m2 1 room FLAT 42: 112 m2 4 rooms FLAT 44: 61 m2 2 rooms FLAT 45: 114 m2 4 rooms FLAT 49: 49 m2 1 room FLAT 50: 106 m2 4 rooms FLAT 48: 61 m2 2 rooms FLAT 47: 104 m2 4 rooms FLAT 51: 119 m2 3 rooms FLAT 46: 119 m2 3 rooms Tenant’s room: 30 FLAT 01: 87 m2 5 rooms FLAT 02: 67 m2 4 rooms FLAT 03: 84 m2 4 rooms FLAT 04: 84 m2 4 rooms FLAT 05: 75 m2 3 rooms FLAT 06: 66 m2 3 rooms FLAT 07: 58 m2 3 rooms FLAT 32: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 33: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 34: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 35: 40 m2 3 rooms FLAT 36: 31 m2 2 room s FLAT 37: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 38: 45 m2 2 rooms FLAT 39: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 40: 33 m2 2 rooms FLAT 41: 29 m2 2 rooms CORE A CORE C CORE B
LAUNDRY ROOM MAINTENANCE 4 Ö Ä Z X W V T S R P N MM M L K KK J H G F E D C B A Ö Ä Z W T R N L J H G F E D C B A 6 10 13 16 19 22 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 34 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 24 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 FLAT 08: 56 m2 3 rooms FLAT 09: 78 m2 3 rooms FLAT 10: 128 m2 5 rooms FLAT 11: 56 m2 3 rooms FLAT 12: 59 m2 2 rooms FLAT 13: 56 m2 3 rooms FLAT 14: 56 m2 2 rooms FLAT 15: 57 m2 3 rooms FLAT 16: 65 m2 4 rooms FLAT 17: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 18: 44 m2 2 rooms FLAT 19: 65 m2 5 rooms FLAT 20: 32 m2 2 rooms FLAT 21: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 22: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 23: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 24: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 25: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 26: 60 m2 4 rooms FLAT 27: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 28: 69 m2 3 rooms FLAT 29: 64m2 3 rooms FLAT 30: 31 m2 2 rooms FLAT 31: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 43: 49 m2 1 room FLAT 42: 112 m2 4 rooms FLAT 44: 61 m2 2 rooms FLAT 45: 114 m2 4 rooms FLAT 49: 49 m2 1 room FLAT 50: 106 m2 4 rooms FLAT 48: 61 m2 2 rooms FLAT 47: 104 m2 4 rooms FLAT 51: 119 m2 3 rooms FLAT 46: 119 m2 3 rooms Tenant’s room: 30 FLAT 01: 87 m2 5 rooms FLAT 02: 67 m2 4 rooms FLAT 03: 84 m2 4 rooms FLAT 04: 84 m2 4 rooms FLAT 05: 75 m2 3 rooms FLAT 06: 66 m2 3 rooms FLAT 07: 58 m2 3 rooms FLAT 32: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 33: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 34: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 35: 40 m2 3 rooms FLAT 36: 31 m2 2 room s FLAT 37: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 38: 45 m2 2 rooms FLAT 39: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 40: 33 m2 2 rooms FLAT 41: 29 m2 2 rooms CORE A CORE C CORE B
LAUNDRY ROOM MAINTENANCE
PLAN 1:400 STORIES 5-7 EXCERPT FROM PLAN 1:200
STORIES 5-7
4 Ö Ä Z X W V T S R P N MM M L K KK J H G F E D C B A Ö Ä Z W T R N L J H G F E D C B A 6 10 13 16 19 22 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 34 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 24 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 ATRIUM CAFETERIA AUTIDOTIUM RESTAURANT KITCHEN STORE ROOMS FOR RESTAURANT VENTILATION ROOM VENTILATION ROOM CORE A CORE C CORE B STORE-ROOMS
LAUNDRY ROOM MAINTENANCE
PLAN 1:400 STOREY 2
The program of the existing building is complex. While
this project focuses on the development of new
apart-ments in the office spaces, it also makes suggestions for
the ground floor and mezzanine currently holding foyer,
restaurant, café and production areas.
APARTMENTS
The project aims at showing that it is possible to build
300 apartments in the existing structure in a
cost-effi-cient way. As a consequence, the building process has
been deciding much of the logic of the project. Simple
technical solution and standardization of expensive parts
of the project (bathroom modules and connected
kitch-ens) where first priorities, along with no added circulation.
The chosen solution is one where the ventilation system
is installed horizontally on each floor and connected with
existing shafts. This calls for a corridor in the centre of the
L-block (also called house 2 and 3) and one corridor
sur-rounding the core in the tower block (house 1).
Typical for an office building is the depth from the facade,
making it a challenge to meet the requirements of
day-light in each room. To some extent this affects the plans,
mainly in the tower block, and calls for bigger apartments
there.
In the lower block however, the repetitiveness makes
another approach possible. As the depths of the
apart-ments are fixed by the building volumes and position of
the corridor to two standard measurements, and since
the facade is repetitive, I used a diagram as a tool for
programming the sequence of flats and reach diversity.
The diagram shows the maximum number of accessible
rooms for each number of windows in the room, and for
the building depth. The two diagrams shown here apply
to the outside and inside of house two and three on floors
5-7.
Using the tool, choosing from a fixed number of
possibili-ties, the flats can be standardised yet exchangeable, and
the geometries of installations are easily planned.
The B-unit, with one of the windows at the side of the
wall element, is the smallest possible room width, 1700
mm excluding wall thickness, while the A-unit with a
width of only 1060 mm, is too narrow to form a room on
its own. By combining units (AA, AB, BB etc.), rooms of
dif-ferent proportions can be achieved. The furnishing
sug-gestions in the plan show how the different combinations
of units give spaces for specific use.
The south and east facade is set back on the two
4 Ö Ä Z X W V T S R P N MM M L K KK J H G F E D C B A Ö Ä Z W T R N L J H G F E D C B A 6 10 13 16 19 22 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 34 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 24 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 VENTILATION ATRIUM DIVIDEABLE OFFICE SPACES
STORE-ROOMS FOR OFFICES CORE A
CORE C
CORE B
LAUNDRY ROOM MAINTENANCE
PLAN 1:400 STOREY 4
PROPOSAL: PLANS
most floors. This means that the apartments are of equal
depth on both sides of the corridor. Since the vertical
in-stallations for water are connected to the position of the
corridor, which remains intact, this does not affect the
technical solutions in the building.
OTHER USES
In the office building, a restaurant, café, lecture- and
meeting halls form the ground floor that connects the
office volumes. These spaces are clearly unfit for
residen-tial use due to their lack of windows. The same goes for
the big open space on the fourth floor (one floor above
ground floor). This space was originally meant for
produc-tion, formed as a large hall with lantern roofs and smaller
office rooms to the sides.
For the project, I suggest that the ground floor functions
are kept intact. As an area with an increasing amount of
inhabitants and a city life that is extending from office
hours to the whole day, a restaurant should be able to live
on. Some spaces could be used collectively by tenants in
the house for meetings etc..
With minimal adjustments, the 4th floor space can be
kept as office space. I propose a way to keep this area
clearly separated from the residential areas, sharing only
the stairs and elevators. The big space can easily be
subdi-vided into smaller office landscapes, with access to
collec-tive meeting rooms, vestibules and pantry as shown in the
drawing.
The two lower, underground floors hold the parking
spac-es needed to meet the parking norms for the area. They
can be kept as they are.
ANALYSIS
How do you live in a room, 1300 mm wide? Who will live
there? Will it be someone else than the person who can
manage to buy into the condominiums built next door?
These apartments are compromises, with both qualities
and downsides. They are practical solutions in an uneasy
setting, making the best of a structure that is unfit for
housing. The depth of the apartments means that there
is much space for program without daylight, such as
stor-age. While the high number of apartments per corridor
hint that the apartments have been squeezed into the
volume, the main design problem is in fact how to make
good use of the whole depth. The rooms are sometimes
small, but meet the minimum standards, which makes
the impression that there are many rooms in relation to
the space. As to their urban setting, the location is very
at-tractive: by the water, with close proximity to inner
Stock-holm and the centre in LiljeStock-holmen.
4 Ö Ä Z X W V T S R P N MM M L K KK J H G F E D C B A Ö Ä Z W T R N L J H G F E D C B A 6 10 13 16 19 22 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 34 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 24 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 FLAT 01: 38 m2 2 rooms FLAT 02: 35 m2 2 rooms FLAT 03: 68 m2 4 rooms FLAT 04: 68 m2 4 rooms FLAT 05: 58 m2 3 rooms FLAT 06: 54 m2 3 rooms FLAT 07: 44 m2 2 rooms FLAT 08: 45 m2 2 rooms FLAT 09: 63 m2 3 rooms FLAT 10: 90 m2 4 rooms FLAT 11: 39 m2 2 rooms FLAT 12: 48 m2 2 rooms FLAT 13: 45 m2 2 rooms FLAT 14: 45 m2 2 rooms FLAT 15: 46 m2 3 rooms Tenant’s room: 30 FLAT 16: 46 m2 3 rooms FLAT 17: 44 m2 2 rooms FLAT 18: 59 m2 3 rooms FLAT 02: 103 m2 4 rooms FLAT 01: 103 m2 4 rooms FLAT 03: 103 m2 4 rooms FLAT 04: 103 m2 4 rooms VENTILATION ROOM VENTILATION ROOM FLAT 19: 32 m2 2 rooms FLAT 20: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 21: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 22: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 23: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 24: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 25: 60 m2 4 rooms FLAT 26: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 27: 69 m2 3 rooms FLAT 28: 64m2 3 rooms FLAT 29: 31 m2 2 rooms FLAT 30: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 31: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 32: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 33: 27 m2 1 room FLAT 34: 40 m2 3 rooms FLAT 35: 31 m2 2 room s FLAT 36: 27 m2 2 rooms FLAT 37: 45 m2 2 rooms FLAT 38: 55 m2 3 rooms FLAT 39: 33 m2 2 rooms FLAT 40: 29 m2 2 rooms CORE A CORE C CORE B
LAUNDRY ROOM MAINTENANCE
PLAN 1:400 STORIES 8-9
PROPOSAL: PLANS
The proposed plans raises questions about the qualities
of the resulting spaces. While the norm of contemporary
apartment is an open plan with many directions of space,
these rooms are minimal, unproportionate high in
rela-tion to width, and so deep that the way of living in them
must change drastically. This deviation from the norm
(without violating the rules for reuse of buildings in
Swe-den) is the consequence of the existing structure, but will
also have economic impact. Since the spaces will not be
considered attractive, the price for renting or buying the
apartments will be lower. Hopefully, this can be a way of
achieving the goal of creating an option of homes equal
in value to inhabitants, but unequal in value on the
hous-ing market.
The apartments will be presented as temporary to be able
to use certain technical loopholes in the building
regula-tions. But what will happen in the long run? If the project
is successful and this addition to the area is appreciated,
will the temporary building permit (maximum 10 years)
be prolonged?
Will the new housing compound become accepted as
“proper apartments”? In that case, the interference might
have added to the idea of what living space could be,
making the norm broader. If that means that the
socio-economic consequences will last is hard to tell. At least
it will have meant something for some people, even for a
shorter time, before rents go up.
Or maybe, the temporary apartments will just have been a
ten-year delay of the demolition. In that case - maybe the
delay was enough for the city to once again see the value
of the structure, finding a use for which it is (normatively)
better suited? Though obscure, the possible outcomes are
hopeful.
I think it is possible to generalize this project into a
meth-od that is applicable in more areas where older structures
are replaced by something that has a high market value
at the moment. By respecting the constraints of the
struc-ture through an economic argument, they will not as
eas-ily be conformed. In the current situation in Stockholm,
where the need for quick and qualitative housing
solu-tions is desperate, while the market solution to providing
them is malfunctioning, it is an efficient way of using the
period in the life of a building when it is out of date. It is
possible to to turn the unwanted into something that
supports and enriches society.
ONE WINDOW TWO WINDOWS THREE WINDOWS FOUR WINDOWS FIVE WINDOWS SIX WINDOWS SEVEN WINDOWS EIGHT WINDOWS BASIC UNITS MAX. 2 ROOMS 1 ROOM MAX. 3 ROOMS MAX. 4 ROOMS MAX. 5 ROOMS MAX. 6 ROOMS A A A A B A B B A B B A A B A A B A A B B A A A B B A A A A B A A B B A B B A A B B A A B B A A B B B A A B B A A B A B B A A B B A A A B A B B B B A A B B A A B B B A B B A A B B B B 5880 5880 5880 3520 2880 2240 1700 1060 11880 8880 9520 7060 4700 10060 10700 8240 11880 7700 11880 4060 10 m2 16 m2 38 m2 44 m2 67 m2 73 m2 96 m2 102 m2 27 m2 21 m2 33 m2 56 m2 56 m2 56 m2 84 m2 78 m2 90 m2 113 m2 113 m2 113 m2
LOGIC OF COMBINATIONS: DEPTH 9600
ONE WINDOW TWO WINDOWS THREE WINDOWS FOUR WINDOWS FIVE WINDOWS SIX WINDOWS SEVEN WINDOWS EIGHT WINDOWS BASIC UNITS MAX. 2 ROOMS 1 ROOM MAX. 3 ROOMS MAX. 4 ROOMS MAX. 5 ROOMS MAX. 6 ROOMS A A A A B A B B A B B A A B A A B A A B B A A A B B A A A A B A A B B A B B A A B B A A B B A A B B B A A B B A A B A B B A A B B A A A B A B B B B A A B B A A B B B A B B A A B B B B 5880 5880 5880 3520 2880 2240 1700 1060 11880 8880 9520 7060 4700 10060 10700 8240 11880 7700 11880 4060 10 m2 16 m2 38 m2 44 m2 67 m2 73 m2 96 m2 102 m2 27 m2 21 m2 33 m2 56 m2 56 m2 56 m2 84 m2 78 m2 90 m2 113 m2 113 m2 113 m2
LOGIC OF COMBINATIONS: DEPTH 9600
ONE WINDOW TWO WINDOWS THREE WINDOWS FOUR WINDOWS FIVE WINDOWS SIX WINDOWS SEVEN WINDOWS EIGHT WINDOWS BASIC UNITS MAX. 2 ROOMS 1 ROOM MAX. 3 ROOMS MAX. 4 ROOMS MAX. 5 ROOMS MAX. 6 ROOMS A A A A B A B B A B B A A B A A B A A B B A A A B B A A A A B A A B B A B B A A B B A A B B A A B B B A A B B A A B A B B A A B B A A A B A B B B B A A B B A A B B B A B B A A B B B B 5880 5880 5880 3520 2880 2240 1700 1060 11880 8880 9520 7060 4700 10060 10700 8240 11880 7700 11880 4060 8 m2 13 m2 31 m2 36 m2 54 m2 59 m2 78 m2 83 m2 22 m2 17 m2 27 m2 45 m2 45 m2 45 m2 68 m2 64 m2 73 m2 92 m2 92 m2 92 m2
LOGIC OF COMBINATIONS: DEPTH 7800
ONE WINDOW TWO WINDOWS THREE WINDOWS FOUR WINDOWS FIVE WINDOWS SIX WINDOWS SEVEN WINDOWS EIGHT WINDOWS BASIC UNITS MAX. 2 ROOMS 1 ROOM MAX. 3 ROOMS MAX. 4 ROOMS MAX. 5 ROOMS MAX. 6 ROOMS A A A A B A B B A B B A A B A A B A A B B A A A B B A A A A B A A B B A B B A A B B A A B B A A B B B A A B B A A B A B B A A B B A A A B A B B B B A A B B A A B B B A B B A A B B B B 5880 5880 5880 3520 2880 2240 1700 1060 11880 8880 9520 7060 4700 10060 10700 8240 11880 7700 11880 4060 8 m2 13 m2 31 m2 36 m2 54 m2 59 m2 78 m2 83 m2 22 m2 17 m2 27 m2 45 m2 45 m2 45 m2 68 m2 64 m2 73 m2 92 m2 92 m2 92 m2
2. The only change to the concrete structure is made: minimal shafts for
water are drilled vertically through the Variax elements. The exhaust
ven-tilation system is installed horisontally on each floor, using the shafts and
infrastructure of the office building. Changing use will result in approx.
30% excess capacity. The carpet is cut away where structure needs to meet
the floor.
1. All light interior divisions are removed as they do not meet the fire
protection criteria. This can be done using the building’s service
eleva-tor. There is no need for additional infrastructure or shielding the
build-ing, since the technical systems are kept intact.
The transformation from office building to temporary appartments can
be done with the existing infrastructure. There are two industrial
eleva-tor that can carry most of the material, including bathroom modules,
pre-sawn wall timber and boards. If needed, one part of the building
(i.e. divided by the cores) could be rebuilt at a time.
3. Modular bathrooms are installed. There are four different modules with
two possible placements (differentiated by the direction door). The
mod-ules are transported in two pieces using the service elevator. The carpet is
fixated after the transport.
4. The wooden frame construction is raised, using 3 by 2 inches for interior
walls, and 5 by 2 inches for walls separating flats. This is needed to stabilize
the 3.40 m high walls.
5. Finally, the frames are clad with plywood and plasterboard and kitchens
put in place and installed. The heating system (radiators under windows)
is maintained from the office. The repurposing process can also be carried
out at one half of the building at a time.
VARIATION OF USE
PLAN AND SECTION OF B-UNIT ROOM 1:50
Fully accessible bathroom unit
All installation in one half Exhaust air through bathroom
Cast floor with inclination and reinforcement Seam sealed after joining the two halfs
Hole in frame for door in otherdirection Metal frame structure for lightness
Storage space on top (1 m high)
Fully accessible bathroom unit
All installation in one half Exhaust air through bathroom
Cast floor with inclination and reinforcement Seam sealed after joining the two halfs
Hole in frame for door in otherdirection Metal frame structure for lightness
Storage space on top (1 m high)
MODULE A
Bathroom with high
accessibili-ty, two possible door directions.
MODULE B
Bathroom for flats where
laun-dry room is not provided.
MODULE C
Toilet supplementing main
bath-room in bigger flats.
MODULE D
Non-accessible bathroom (lower standard)
for flats where the structure demands it.
BATHROOM MODULES
The bathroom modules are prefabricated, self-supported
“rooms-with-in-the-room”. There are four different versions, two smaller and two
including shower and waching machines. The bigger modules come in
halfs to fit into the elevators, and are easily assambled inside the
build-ing. All installations are built into the same halft of the module.
Johan Alvfors: Repurposing the Unwanted - 300 temporary appartments in Marievik (degree project). Studio #2, supervised by Anders Wilhelmsson, Tor Lindstrand and Erik Wingquist. Contact: johan@alvfors.se, +46 (0) 730-50 37 72
Section of room in B section, one window, depth 5500
Johan Alvfors: Repurposing the Unwanted - 300 temporary appartments in Marievik (degree project). Studio #2, supervised by Anders Wilhelmsson, Tor Lindstrand and Erik Wingquist. Contact: johan@alvfors.se, +46 (0) 730-50 37 72
Kitchen in B-B section, two windows, depth 7800
PROPOSAL: SPACES
Johan Alvfors: Repurposing the Unwanted - 300 temporary appartments in Marievik (degree project). Studio #2, supervised by Anders Wilhelmsson, Tor Lindstrand and Erik Wingquist. Contact: johan@alvfors.se, +46 (0) 730-50 37 72
Room in B section, one window, depth 5500
Room in A-A section, two windows, depth 5500
Room in B section, one window, depth 7300
Johan Alvfors: Repurposing the Unwanted - 300 temporary appartments in Marievik (degree project). Studio #2, supervised by Anders Wilhelmsson, Tor Lindstrand and Erik Wingquist. Contact: johan@alvfors.se, +46 (0) 730-50 37 72
