Common Rooms

IN

DEGREE PROJECT ARCHITECTURE, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020 ,

Common Rooms

A Residential Hotel for Stockholm’s Solitary Inhabitants

OLIVER CASSIDY

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

TRITA TRITA-ABE-MBT-2073

www.kth.se

COMMON ROOMS DEGREE SUBMISSION 22.05.20

Oliver Cassidy, Studio RE- KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Supervisors:

Mikael Bergquist, Thordis Arrhenius

A Residential Hotel for Stockholm’s Solitary Inhabitants

Contents

CONTACT:

Oliver Cassidy ocassidy@kth.se +44 7726 336 460 WITH THANKS TO:

Mikael Bergquist Thordis Arrhenius

1. Introduction

1.1 Living Alone in Sweden

1.2 Temporality and Communality in Housing 1.3 Individual and Collective Dwelling Spaces 1.4 An Idiorrhythmic Lifestyle

2. Typological History 2.1 Monastic Roots

2.2 Residential Hotels in the U.S.

2.3 Collective Housing today? WeWork

3. Location

3.1 Telefonplan 3.2 Site

4. Proposal

4.1 Courtyards in Mass Housing 16

4.2 Figures, Doors and Passages 21

4.3 G.A. Drawings 22

4.4 Facade 32

4.5 Detail Plans 34

4.6 Interior View 38

2

7

10

14

Introduction

Living Alone in Sweden

an ecological and financial load. In addition, each individual is burdened with the maintenance of these spaces and objects; it is an unecessary personal labour.

This thesis proposes to re-imagine the historically prevalent and varied typology of the residential hotel, as a solution to the spatially greedy and exclusive residences currently on offer.

Small, individual dwelling spaces with shared facilities create an economy of scale that in turn allow for common luxuries. Economic burdens are shared, time is freed, and ecological damage is limited.

Sweden is the most individual society in Europe: more than half its population live alone. In Stockholm this figure is 60% ¹ . There is also a perceived housing crisis. Due to issues with taxation on land value, and an economic incentive for developers to build tenant-

ownership housing, there is a shortage in low-cost housing ² .

Over the last 50 years, the number of people per dwelling has dropped (from 2.8 per household in 1960 to 2.1 in 2017) ³ . People’s ways of living have changed, yet currently the majority of new homes produced are single family dwellings ⁴ , as this is where the most money can be made.

As people increasingly live alone in typical appartments, the spatial requirement per person rises. Spaces such as kitchens, bathrooms and living spaces are required separately for each resident; appliances such as fridges, washing machines and hobs are owned individually.

Not only is this a spatial strain, it is also an economic and environmental issue.

The upkeep and production of both the spaces and their furnishings carries

1. Klinenberg E (2012) Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone.

New York: Penguin Books.

2. Bengt Hansson: Sweden’s Housing market: Structural Changes. Presentation: Stockholm, October 23, 2018 3. Hans Lind: Affordable housing in Sweden. Presentation: Stockholm, 23 October 2018

4. Ibid.

Acceptera: A manifesto for modern Sweden

Image source: Scan from Acceptera

Temporality and Communality in Housing Today

liberating wives from the duties of their unpaid domestic labour. This was commonly known as a ‘labour of love’.

The residential hotels were eventually undercut in the 1940s as the

government actively funded low cost mortgages for American families on new, suburban, single family dwellings.

Similarly in Sweden, collective housing, which had been growing in popularity, was sidelined due to the perceived similarities to the Soviet equivalents.

In tracing the history of the minimum dwelling, DOGMA looked to de- idealise the form of living and to present it as a viable alternative to commodified property, instead the individual’s room is a basic human right.

In the graph on the right, I have laid out some prevelant residential typologies, demonstratating that we are already aware of and comfortable with alternatives to the single family dwelling.

The traditional nuclear family that many of us have grown up in (and which commonly considered the norm) has not always been the dominant arrangement. Throughout history, and across the world, various sizes and types of communities have lived together. Whether this be extended families, nomadic tribes or large-scale collectives the residential typologies (and broader built environments) have been structured to support these societies.

In their book, Loveless, DOGMA trace the history of the residential hotel from its origins in monasteries, through the American residential hotels and the collective housing blocks of the USSR, to the contemporary minimum dwelling.

In the U.S. the boarding houses of the early 19th century were superseded by the residential hotels as the population became more metropolitan, as a

result of increased social mobility and transient workers. These new ways of living were seen as a threat to the nuclear family model, potentially

COMMUNAL PRIVATE

Boarding House

TEMPORARY

PERMANENT Hotel Hostel

Residential Hotel Common Rooms Worker’s Lodging

Bachelor Flat S.R.O

Student Housing Goshiwon

Prison

Housing Cooperative Commune

B&B

Elderly Home

Air B&B Motel

Monastery

Villa Appartment

Palace

Diagram comparing the temporality and communality of various residential typologies

Image: Author’s Own

In 1932 Karl Tiege, a Czech modernist thinker and critic, envisioned a new way of living which he called ‘the minimum dwelling’. Although not an architect himself, he was inspired by the residential hotels and worker’s lodgings springing up accross Europe and the U.S. and seeked to formalise it as a way of living for all.

He saw this not as a reduced version of a standard apartment or rural cottage but an alternative mode of dwelling centred around minimum individual living quarters, ‘minimal but adequate, independant, habitable room’ and a wide range of collective facilities. Tiege rejected the traditional kitchen and traditional family centred plans hence providing collectivised housekeeping, cooking and childcare, which freed women from their domestic labours and allowed them time to enter the workplace.

This project aims to echo Tiege’s thesis, which was radical at the time, and is still unusual today.

Individual living cells consist of a

Karl Tiege’s diagram of the minimum dwelling

Image: Scan from DOGMA’s Loveless

Common Rooms as a similar collective dwelling

Image: Authors Own

Communal and Individual Spaces in Collective Dwellings

bedroom and bathroom (and a hall shared with one other room). The rest of the facilities are shared amongst residents:

There are shared service spaces such as the laundry room, the mail room and kitchens.

There are places for study/relaxation such as reading rooms, a library, lounges.

There are places to eat and drink: a bar, dining halls, a cafe.

There are places for leisure: a terrace, a

garden, a gym, a pool, a ball room.

The Idiorrhythmic Lifestyle

An Idiorrhythmic Lifestyle

In his lecture series, How to Live Together (1976-77), Roland Barthes investigated the ways in which small groups of people have lived together, examining both historic communities and novels to extarct and analyse the elements which made these communities less or more successful in the search for and idiorrhythmic lifestyle.

Idiorrhythmy, a term coined by Barthes, comes from the Greek idios and

rhythmos or one’s own and rhythm/

rule. For him, this was the goal of any successful community; allowing the indivdual autonomy throughout their day, with the option to come toegther with people as and when they please, creating a balance between solitude and socialbility.

“Its a fanstasy of a life, a regime, a lifestyle, diatia, diet.

Neither dual nor plural (collective).

Something like solitude with regular interruptions: the paradox, the contradiction, the aporia of bringing distances together - the utopia of a socialism of distance”

The architecture of this project should embrace this philosophy as its aim, imagining a place for these people who want to live alone and to provide a spatial structure that is supportive of the independence, whilst providing opportunities for sociability.

A Scan of the Cover of How to Live Together

Typological History

Roots in Monasticism

Gautamiputra Vihara, Nasik, India, 1

Century BCE

Image source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasik_Caves#/media/

Charterhouse, Florence 14

Century

Image source:

https://chiantilife.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/certosa-flor- ence-carthusian-monastery/

Both Barthes and DOGMA note the key links between monasticism and their theses; Barthes cites monasticism as the purely idiorrhythmic life, whilst DOGMA note it as a the birth of the minimum dwelling and thus, the residential hotel.

Monacsticism itself evolved from hermits who practised acetism. These hermits then formed semi-eremitic communities where they lived loosely together. The eremetic forms of monasticism follow from this normally in individual buildings/cells loosely gathered around a church.

One of the earlier known built examples of monastic communities is Gautamiputra Vihara in Nasik, India. For the buddhist monks, the collectivisation of services gave them freedom from the requirements of domestic life, which meant more time for prayer and study.

The spaces which were carved in to caves comprised of individual cells grouped around a grand hall, demonstrating both the solitary and communal ways of the monks.

In more formal versions such as the

14 ^th Century Charterhouse (left).

The lifestyle if more rigorous and hierachical, this is represented in the more arrangements and grouping of spaces. Different sizes of individual dwellings are for the upper and lower tiers within the order, the ‘fathers’ and

‘brothers’. However, still we see a similar

arrangement with the cells grouped

around a large cloister, and other shared

rooms.

Monastic Roots

The Residential Hotel in The U.S.

Chelsea Hotel, New York, 1883 Philip G. Hubert

Image source:

https://dujour.com/lifestyle/chelsea-hotel-inside-dream-palace- book/

The Biltmore Hotel, New York, 1913 Warren & Wetmore

Image source:

https://collections.mcny.org

The residential hotel as we know it today was popularised in the U.S. in the late 19th Century as a formalisation of the boarding house, providing cost effective accommodation for newly mobile workers in burgeoning cities.

Arguably the most famous example of the residential hotel, The Chelsea (as it was commonly known) is also credited as the first cooperative aparment house.

Its architect, Philip G. Hubert saw the building as a model solution to the housing crisis due to an influx of migrant workers. Hubert’s scheme was rolled out in other locations, under the name of the Home Club: ‘affordable accomodation that combined the domestic arrangement of the European apartment with the transiency of the American hotel.

The housing units were kitchenless and flexible, allowing for personalisation by longer-term residents and accomodating different ways of living. Individual units were complemented by a selection of collective facilities and serviced housekeeping.

In total eight Home Club’s were built, allowing affordable housing to groups, families and individuals. They were also based on an innovatibe economic model of common property in a joint stock scheme.

Aside from the economics, The Chelsea is also interesting due to its monumentality:

it was the tallest building in New York at the time. Its generally evolutionary attitude may partly be what inspired the activists who followed the co-op model.

For the bohemians who lived there it was luxury at a low-cost.

The typology then proliferated over the next 30/40 years and became more efficient. The Biltmore was built at the height of hotel living in New York.

In 1901, new Tenement Law banned construction of dark and poorly ventlated buildings, leading to the characteristic U, H and E shapes. These designs allowed for maximum efficiency/profitability.

The scale of the Biltmore was in comparison to Grand Central Station which it fronted. Its massive 26 storey volume housed public facilites such as restaurants, bars, lobbies and meeting rooms. On the top floor were ballrooms, only for use by the residents.

In between these functions were an

unprecedented number of rooms,

approximately 1000 all with their own

bathroom. Rooms varied in size, although

most were designed for one person,

standardised to reduce cost.

Location

Telefonplan

Telefonplan is located to the South West of Stockholm city-centre. The site was origi- nally home to Ericsson who constructed the original factory buildings in the late 1930s and 1940s.

They continued to build industrial and office buildings throughout their time until they left moved further out in 2007. At this time

they sold some of their buildings to Konts-

fack, one of Stockholm’s art university. The

rest of the buildings have been taken up by

various functions including offices, student

residences, gymnasiums and resturants.

The Site

The piece of land I have chosen for the project is currently marked for a residential development. It previously housed a concrete multi-storey car park which has since been demolished.

To the East of the site is a large concrete building from the 60s, which houses offices and student residences. To the North are recently completed student residences. To the West is a woodland and informal amphitheatre. To the South is the large concrete bridge which carries the metro over the road.

The proposed scheme is at the planning stage so unit numbers are not confirmed;

currently planned are approximately 400 units. This thesis will run as an alternative to their proposals, for this I have taken a nominal target of 1000 rooms, with the addition of many more collective facilities.

Location Plan

Site Section (Proposal shaded blue)

Proposal

Courtyards in Mass Community Housing

Climat de France, Algiers, 1957 Fernand Pouillon

The courtyard form has been appropriated to many different programmes and typologies. Its inherent quality of enclosure creates a sense of protection whilst maintaining open space; the mass of the building forms a thick, inhabited wall.

While the cloister was utilised to give a focal point for the monks’ activities, in mass housing the aim is similar: the courtyards are a shared space, owned and used to varying degrees by those live in the surrounding walls. In contrast to the private individual dwellings, these spaces bind the residents together.

Placing the open space at the centre of the scheme also has a levelling effect:

every person can look on to the same view, a shared experience even when not using the space.

Within housing projects of scale, the courtyard is also a useful planning tool.

A large space at the centre allows the buildings to be formed of one continuous mass, which is preferable in engendering a sense of community, where the alternative might be fragmented masses such as towers or long row houses.

The two examples to the left, Fernand Pouillon’s Climat de France in Algiers and Kay Fisker’s Hornbækhus, both exemplify the efficacy of this arragement in large scale housing schemesv in very different climates and social contexts.

Hornbækhus, Copenhagen, 1922

Kay Fisker

Location Plan 1:2500

Site Axonometric

The masses and volumes of the courtyard typology are shifted, and opening locations adjusted, to suit the varied surrounding context.

To the South the wing is shrunk to allow sunlight

into the courtyard, similarly to the North the

mass is smaller so as not to shade the residential

buildings. To the West a large opening frames the

amphitheatre and connects the building to the

woodland.

South Elevation 1:1000

Figures, Doors and Passages Robin Evans

In his essay: Figures, Doors and Passages, Robin Evans traces a history of domestic planning, marking the differences between the plans of the Renaissance Italian Palazzo and the 17 ^th Century English Country house and the effects that this has on the social psychology of its inhabitants.

He first notes the plan as an important historic descriptor of the nature of human interactions, highlighting the ability of walls, doors and windows to connect or divide people. He then looks to the plans of Italian Villas with directly connected, thoroughfare rooms.

When moving around the building one would pass through the activities of the other rooms increasing the chance for incidental encounters:

‘men, women, children, servants and visitors - were obliged to pass through a matrix of connecting rooms where the day-to-day business of life was carried on. It was inevitable that paths would intersect during the course of a day, and that every activity was liable to intercession unless very

definite measure were taken to avoid it’

In the English Country house examples he notes the birth of the ‘passage’, which evolved to what we now know as the corridor. The advent of the passage altered the lifestyle of the inhabitants;

instead of passing through ‘thoroughfare rooms’ one instead moves between

‘terminal rooms’ via a corridor. This makes it more difficult for people to enjoy chance encounters, one must have a reason to enter a room and engage in conversation.

In the arranging of the rooms (accross all the floors) I have tried to create a spatiality which follows the principle of the throughfare rooms; encouraging chance encounters between residents and thus enableing and enhancing the idiorhythmic lifestyle.

Palazzo Antonini, Udine, mid 16th Century

Andrea Pallado Bearwood House, Sindlesham, 1865-1874

Robert Kerr

Ground Floor Plan 1:1000

Gym

Ground Floor Plan 1:500

1.

2.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 9.

10.

3.

3.

3.

11.

12. 12. 12. 12.

13. 13. 13.

14. 14. 14. 14.

15. 15.

16.

17.

Rooms (anticlockwise from entrance):

1. Entrance Gallery, 2. Reception, 3. Offices, 4. Restaurant, 5. Kitchen, 6. Bar, 7. Club, 8. Leisure Office, 9. Changing Rooms,

10. Pool, 11. Gym, 12. Storage, 13. Washing, 14. Ateliers, 15. Loggia, 16. Shop

Typical Plan 1:500

Rooms in the typical plan are accessible only to residents and are loosely arranged around a series of shared spaces, including

living spaces, study rooms, kitchens and balconies as well as larger spaces such as orangeries, bars/cafes and dining rooms.

Second Floor Plan 1:500

The second floor plan contains elements of the lower and upper floor plans, mixing more public and more private elements.

To the West the building opens up to frame the amphitheatre.

Section Through East Wing 1:500

Axonometric View

Perspective view East across the courtyard

Ground Floor Plan 1-200

Typical Plan 1-200

Southern Elevation 1:1000

Southern Facade 1:100

Southern Facade Detail 1:50

Typical Plan Detail 1:100

Typical Plan Detail 1:50

Section Detail 1:50

Interior Model Location 1:250

Interior Model Location 1:250