Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NERU MAGEindhoven 2013
CITY AS A LAB
NERU
Introduction
Foreword by Cees Donkers The Crew Happy New People by Elena Karkh
Dacha Project. The reuse of wooden frames
Geestenberg First steps Concept A.1 Concept A.2 Concept A.3 Concept B Concept C Concept D
From commune to community. Cross-generational project
Foreword by Cees Donkers Research House Commune Kommunalka Experience ? Location Meaning of the school Way of living Why 60plus/30minus community? Translation Concept A Translation Concept B
Concepts of the old school building reuse
Extra activities
Lively cities workshop Plakken in doornakkers Shadow city project
Colophon
468
1016182022242630
323436384042465051525456
64
666869
70
The Moscow Design Act in August 2010 was the start of the co-operation between Russia and Eindhoven in the Netherlands. The modest presentation of Dutch Design during that exhibi-tion caused a chain of new connections between Russian cities like Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Petrozav-otsk, Tyumen, Krasnoyarsk, St Petersburg and of course Mos-cow and Eindhoven. The White Tower in Yekaterinburg and the project YEK2.0 with Russian students became a sort of an icon for the love from both sides for closer collaboration, urban re-search and design and exchange of knowledge in workshops, (Skype) lectures and internships in Eindhoven.
During the first Ural Biennial September 2010, after a lecture about the transformation process in Eindhoven caused by the loss of the Philips ‘making industry’ during the nineties, stu-dents gave their ideas about transformation subjects in their own city in a three day’s workshop. More Russian cities and Universities were interested in this way of research-education. Novosibirsk organized a conference with an exhibition about student work but also the architectural transformation and re-use of old factories from Philips in Eindhoven and the les-sons taken from that process. In October 2012 the first Bra-bant Biennial was organized in Eindhoven as part of the Dutch Design Week and the first group of Russian students came to Eindhoven to take part in the preparation of common results and to experience these cultural vibes. The YEK2.0 studies and the NERU Magazine were published and a great exhibition was shown in the Catharina Church in the heart of the city. Since then there is a ‘Russian house’ for students and tutors to live during internships in a neighborhood called Doornakkers where practical urban studies can be made. The Social Housing Company WOONBEDRIJF and the City Department are part-ners in this collaboration and research.
After three years of starting up his process more results will be presented and discussed at the Netherlands-Russia (NERU) Conference 17 and 18th of October 2013 and the NERU Exhi-bition in the White Lady building (Library) in Eindhoven. This will be a ‘prelude’ or ‘teaser’ to the Dutch Design Week from 18-28th of October.
During the spring and summer of 2013 students and profes-sionals from Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Perm and Tyumen in Russia and Zurich (Switzerland) studied on two subjects: the re-use of wooden window frames from the Geestenberg neigh-borhood for the design of Datcha’s and the social design project called 60+/30- about the revaluation of the community think-ing for different generations as a medicine for mutual care. This ‘summer course’ was made possible by the 2 partners City
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
4
Department and Woonbedrijf and the architect Marc van der Linden (VDLP-architects) for the frame project. These two prac-tical subjects made it possible to get some experience in the Dutch way of work and to contribute to creative and nowadays solutions. Both are about a re-use society in which there is no - or less money to spend, shrinking cities and a new student gen-eration that is communicating all over the world while working on creative expectations of the future. The two projects shows free thinking in ‘out of the box‘ ideas. The Dacha’s are meant for free gardening objects to store but also live in community gardening areas. Especially in the Geestenberg neighborhood they can be used as a solution for the common green area in the center of this neighborhood. This area was designed in the seventies and meant to share several private gardens into one community garden. During the last 40 years it was not used this way anymore. By proposing this new use and connection from private to common area the old wooden frames can have a new function in revaluation of the old thoughts. By doing this it can also be a sign for a new generation and their evaluation of the community concepts from the seventies.
Also the ‘school project’ is about new concepts for living to-gether. Like in a very small village people will live together in an old and empty school, church or office and share the care for each other in different generations. After analysis of the new society in which there seems to be no money anymore to buy your own house and no jobs to start with after your graduation these new generations comes up with very creative ideas to step into a new world. Different concepts were made to solve this problem. One of them is to share an empty build-ing to make a new balance between private and common use of interior space. At the same time the care for each other can be a factor to activate this new balance. Young people, starting up their life with jobs but also with a family and after a while little children can use the capacity of an older generation to fill in their free time to cherish and care for the children. At the same time the younger people can take care for the older ones for technical support in a changing ‘internet’ society or service in the care for daily living. This idea is worked out for the re-use of the Franciscus school in Doornakkers.
So it is about more social design thinking on a larger and more abstract scale to share new concepts for social behavior and way of life for a new generation in a nearby future. It is a very interesting theme for dialogue on the 18th of October.
I want to thank all the students and professionals who took part in these projects. They really made it possible to show how international collaboration can start and contribute to a
mutual learning process and translation into a better society. I enjoy this way of work very much and may be the most be-cause of the aspect of human energy that is in it. THNX!
27th September 2013Cees Donkers
5
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
THE CREW
Daria ChetvernyaOccupation: 4th year student of Architecture at Ural State Academy of Architecture and ArtsLocation: Yekaterinburg, Russia
Elena GokhOccupation: 6th year student of Architecture and urbanism at South Ural State UniversityLocation: Magadan, Russia
Darya GrigoryevaOccupation: 6th year student of Landscape architecture and urbanism at South Ural State UniversityLocation: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Elena KarkhOccupation: 2nd year Master‘s student of Financial Economics at Research University Higher School ofEconomicsLocation: Moscow-Perm, Russia
Victoria KhokhlovaOccupation: assistant professor at Tyumen State University of Architecture and Civil engineering.Location: Tyumen, Russia
Dmitry KovalevOccupation: graduate student of Architecture at South Ural State University, Archstroyproject ArchitectLocation: Kurgan, Russia
Egor PapulovOccupation: 6th year student of Landscape architecture and urbanism at South Ural State UniversityLocation: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Vladislav PankinOccupation: graduate student of Design of architectural environment at Tyumen State University ofArchitecture and Civil engineeringLocation: Tyumen, Russia
Iaroslava NesterenkoOccupation: 4th year student of Architecture at Ural State Academy of Architecture and ArtsLocation: Yekaterinburg, Russia
Sophie SteinemannOccupation: 2nd year student of Industrial design at University of Applied Sciences and Arts NorthwesternSwitzerland FHNWLocation: Basel, Switzerland
Igor TarnovskyOccupation: 6th year student of Landscape architecture and urbanism at South Ural State UniversityLocation: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Emilia SokhoshkoOccupation: assistant professor at Tyumen State University of Architecture and Civil engineering.Location: Tyumen, Russia
Anna MedvedevaOccupation: assistant professor at Tyumen State University of Architecture and Civil engineering.Location: Tyumen, Russia
Pinaeva MariyaOccupation: 3th year student of Landscape architecture and urbanism at South Ural State UniversityLocation: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Novikova AnastasiaOccupation: 3th year student of Landscape architecture and urbanism at South Ural State UniversityLocation: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Pirogova NataliyaOccupation: 3th year student of Landscape architecture and urbanism at South Ural State UniversityLocation: Chelyabinsk, Russia
6
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
9
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
Basel - Eindhoven Moscow - EindhovenPerm - EindhovenChelyabinsk - EindhovenYekaterinburg -EindhovenTyumen - EindhovenKurgan - Eindhoven
[456km][2160km][3269km][3658km][3683km][3873km][3911km]
Perm
Yekaterinburg
Chelyabinsk
KurganTyumen
Eindhoven
Moscow
Basel
HAPPY NEW PEOPLE
8
Introduction
Initially, I would love to underline that this article is not about science, it is only about what I have heard, learned and seen from people, from regular people like you and me. During the internship in Eindhoven, I realized how interesting it is to communicate with right people and to ask the right questions. Through such communications the name of the article was in-vented. We went to IQ cafe meeting and started to get involved with new people. We were very excited about open opportuni-ties and one person mentioned that all new people are really inspired and passionate. Consequently, it was settled that we invite only happy new people for participation in further meet-ings. You should see how easy it was to invent, as it did not re-quire any special actions from my side, it was only about being involved. This example brightly illustrates how you can meet inspiring people and start to realize the most important values in the society - the drivers of future changes.
Yesterday
The strongest impression that pushed me to learn and ex-plore everything as deep as possible appeared in the very first days in Eindhoven. On the way from Dusseldorf airport to Eindhoven our coach Cees Donkers was telling me the stories about historical aspects of their society and about Eindhoven New Born. The most important part, of course, was Eindhoven development after the Phillips decision to move to the lower costs countries, which dramatically changed city’s perspec-tives. Firstly, it seems natural that the city understands the limi-tations of industrial economy and is ready to take a new step. However, nobody has asked people about whether they are ready to change their regular lifestyle and habits. They are ob-viously fine with the way they live and do not really care about new development because «better future» usually provides only panic and chaos in the beginning. However, when you meet the today Eindhoven you can never assume the existence of unemployment and uncertainty problems. hAfter visiting High Tech campus, you see that it is a perfectly fit postindustri-al city and because of that strong impression not always think about the background. Definitely, this solution resolving un-employment problems compels you to discover its basics and methods. This place tells you that there is much more to learn and experience in Eindhoven rather than just visiting futuristic places. It is often in life when you think that someone’s life is perfect but you never know about the price paid for reaching that success. The main point is that the Dutch meet very strong challenge. According to historical examples, we know that the
greater challenge you get the greater results you can gain out of it. Comparing it to surfing, we can say that industrial wave is gone and you are not able to control the power of nature, so you should accept the challenge, catch another one and surf on it. That is the only way how you can move faster and sur-vive. This solution has something deeper insight than a strong economical foundation… Today
Let’s assume now that you are a student who has just gradu-ated from Technical University of Eindhoven and is ready to work on the most famous Philips site of your city. You are sure that you are employed because you are brilliant. However, oc-casionally this site is moved to the lower cost-countries sup-ported by bad economic situation and you are not needed anymore. It is obvious that you are in trouble. What are you going to do in this situation? Definitely, if you want to fit and go on with time, you should create something different, some-thing brand new. For most people it seems that everything is already invented and there is nothing to do anymore. How-ever, the most important invention is peoples’ mind and it is endless, it hides the whole new industry inside – Industry of Thinking. Here the empty factory is not only the place, making people suffer; it is a new opportunity to help people. Because when the life gives you lemon you can simply make lemonade. People have discovered a new area and performed the crucial project at that time: reuse of that factory – «White Lady». It has built a solid foundation for creative ideas in Eindhoven as well as become the symbol of historical importance. In spite of the fact that it was the beginning of the new reuse era, it helped people to reach the new level of open possibilities. It is not only reuse of site, it is reuse of mind! Along the time, if you are smart enough to make value almost out of nowhere, you can also realize that you are not the smartest person in the world. Here is the most important breakeven point when society is well-developed in terms of individuals and is ready to communicate effectively. The main tools to handle pessimis-tic situation came from necessity: in values of support, shar-ing knowledge and creativity of new generation. That is what I called a more conceptual and complicated solution to prob-lems connected with transitive period. Moreover, every devel-oped value is brightly presented in society and supported by examples. In this atmosphere the group of young designers is motivated to organize the pilot project in the church, which is about to be demolished, for their studio where they can work and live together. Additionally, it is a signal for talented neigh-bors and other citizens to participate or to follow up. Projecting
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
9
this situation on the very simple dimension we can say that if you are in the situation of uncertainty and not sure about the outcome, do you really want to start? On the other hand, when you are surrounded by successful examples and at the same time feel passion and support, you can go with a flow and do not scare to accept risk. It seems that you have invisible an instruction that manages your way. There is a number of so-cially important projects in Eindhoven now but for me the top one is Collaboration O. where all creative people started their business based on support and uniqueness of physical space. My point is that it is crucial for the reason that it shows young people their strength when they join each other, listen each other and the most importantly understand each other. The efficient relations are the greatest strength of the New Genera-tion. Comparing to Russia, firstly it seems impossible to imple-ment this philosophy there, but it is not. In spite of the fact that institutions cannot be modified and developed in one day, we can undertake the initial steps in order to create the wave of new projects. Firstly, it is important to show that initiative goes from native people and to prove that we are ready for changes. Because in this case nobody can argue that it does not fit in our culture and economy. If we contribute knowledge and be-come more experienced in this area we will be more valuable and able to start making instructions for our country. From this point, I would say that the project performed by my colleagues from Russia contributes a lot for Eindhoven and for Russia as well. Firstly, they fit in Eindhoven nature by saving the histori-cal objects and supporting the idea of sharing knowledge by community creation. Moreover, since nobody forced citizen of Eindhoven to reach that philosophy, these new projects will be very nice supportive instruments for its realization. As for us, we can learn, experience and collaborate!
Tomorrow
I do not argue that it is a perfect world when everything is for free and you can just use it. People around you are ready to help but the same you do. When you go to the public organi-zations (Library and Social Housing) you meet open doors but only in case if you open yours with new ideas. Such open-mind-ed people inspire you to follow them. It is somewhere in the air and it works. But the question still exists whether everyone can see that and feels? Sometimes people need a bit more in order to discover the opportunities. That is why it is very important to perform clarifying events and make people involved there. Summing up, we can say that only self-sufficient people can communicate efficiently with each other. Firstly you should dis-cover yourself and be confident with your own in order to be
ready for sharing. People where compelled by circumstances to perform changes but they were not compelled to choose the methods. There is a balance between ideals and individu-als.
I would love to underline that this is a social innovation be-cause your initial goals were modified and it changed the people. People became warmer and their new values partially replace materialism. Here you are not by your own after gradu-ation, you should only spend some time for discovering oppor-tunities. Always discover yourself, because every such project is just another brick in the Falling Walls of Individualistic Be-havior!
Elena Karkh
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
Geestenberg.
Perhaps the best preserved ‘bloemkoolwijk’ of Netherlands. Think: 70s, system, residential areas and ties. Think: Karregat. A revolutionary 70’s community center, designed by architect Frank Klingeren. Think: together, public and collective. Tenants and owner-occupiers. A mixed neighborhood, a lively district, where one of five houses belongs to an entrepreneur. Think: Living Company, the owner of about half of the homes in this neighborhood. The special power of the Geestenberg lies in the combination of the strong distinctive architecture and the strong social character of the district. Personal contact along power, collective values. They are becoming more important again in the year of 2013. And they harmonize perfectly with the values and design principles of the seventies.
The district is part of sustainable maintenance plan for the 269 apartments of Woonbedrijf. A maintenance mainly according to its original architectural idea. The large majority of residents chose to bring back the original colors, the outer edge of the district is the light gray, and in the heart of the district is dark grey. The color for the frames is also selected collectively by residents for off-white. The work began in september of 2013, one house takes a work of few days. Thus, in six stages and in eighteen months all houses will be ready. In addition to new windows and facades, the houses get a complete new roof and a new ventilation system. Besides this maintenance process, there is equally good energy and sustainability in the social structure; residents get involved in the life of their neighbour-hood again: the Expedition Geestenberg.
DACHA PROJECT.THE REUSE OF WOODEN FRAMES
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
10
Expedition Geestenberg.
To ensure that the entire area remains physically and socially attractive to current and future residents, Woonbedrijf with residents started the Expedition Geestenberg in 2012. A pro-cess for tenants and owner-occupiers to put together the neighborhood development. Dozens of residents divided into four different expedition groups out there. In their own neigh-borhood and along inspiring places in the city.
11
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
FIRST STEPS
Dacha is a traditional country house for Russia. It is normally built of wood with pitched roof. The surrounding area is mostly used to grow vegetables fruits and plants. Also there is always a spot where people have rest, hangout with friends, make barbeque.The idea of all concepts is to apply this in Eindhoven concerning all the possible differenciesin culture and way of life. When we did our research the first thing we thought about was how to organize the whole space of community garden. So we came up with several possible solutions for the whole space:
1. The traditional solution.The whole space is divided into individual areas with pavilions on them.
2.The common space.The whole site is given to a community needs and is shared by all residents.
3.The combination of previous two.Here the site is divided into private spaces but there is still shared space in the middle.
During our meetinds and discussions we have worked out sev-eral possible functions:
-library-garden-place to cook-seats to meet-place to sleep-storage-exhibition-greenhouse
The project goals:
-functionality-siplicity-modularity-interactivity-changeability
Team
Daria GrigorievaEgor PapulovIgor TarnovskyVladislav PankinVictoria Khokhlova
16
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
17
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
CONCEPT A.1
The ‘Dacha’ Pavilion.
The goal of this proposal is to give people in the neighbour-hood some space in their garden where they can spend their free time relaxing in a nature but also protected from weather conditions. The supporting structure is made entirely of re-used window frames. Window openings are filled with differ-ent types of materials to form picturesque composition. The idea was to form standard modules and make them different by customizing each of them. People can use pavillions for dif-ferent purposes depending on their taste and their needs. All the pavilions can be connected by additional module made of frames as pergola.
18
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
19
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
CROSS SECTIONVARIATION
V_1
V_2
V_3
V_4
CONCEPT A.220
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
21
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
CROSS SECTIONVARIATION
V_2
V_3
V_4
CONCEPT A.322
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
23
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
SECTION 1-1
PERSPECTIVE VIEW 1
PERSPECTIVE VIEW 2
SECTION 2-2
CONCEPT B
The ‘Greenhouse’ pavilion
The structure of the pavilion is formed by reused wooden window frames with regular greed. The space itself is open and ventilated from two sides and from another two sides it is closed by greenhouses. The idea on one hand was to give people a nice greenhouse where they can grow vegetables and fruits and on another hand to form shade in summer with plants to give people some privacy when they need it. Another goal of this project was to save the heat during the winter with double glass walls.
24
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
25
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
SECTION 1-1 SECTION 2-2
AERATION SCHEME GROUND FLOOR PLAN
AXONOMETRIC VIEW
CONCEPT C
‘Gryadka’
People normally spend a lot of time taking care of their garden. The idea is to use window frame to regularize the site. By put-ting the frames in different combinations horizontally a person gets wooden paths (space in between the frames) and regular-ized beds for flowers and vegetables and also the possibility to store the yield. As there are window frames of different types we can combine them in many ways which makes it possible to apply this idea to garden of any shape.
26
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
27
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
CROSS SECTION
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PERSPECTIVE VIEW
CONCEPT D
Labyrinth
The idea of labyrinth is to create a common space for a neigh-bourhood using window frames as frames to display some-thing and also to organize the site by combining labyrinth and the park. The window openings can be filled up with different materials in order to make the experience of being inside of the labyrinth interesting and exciting.
Possible fillings for the window openings:
-mirror-pergola-chalkboard-artwork-stencil glass
30
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
PERSPECTIVE VIEW
DA
CH
A P
RO
JEC
T.TH
E R
EUSE
OF
WO
OD
EN F
RA
MES
FUNCTIONAL SCHEME GROUND FLOOR PLAN MODEL PHOTO
PERSPECTIVE VIEW
FROM COMMUNE TO COMMUNITY.CROSS-GENERA-TIONAL PROJECT
At the end of the sixties from the last century a big cultural change occurred in Europe. Started by new music in the begin-ning of this decade the wish for freedom of thinking became stronger and was heard in popsongs. During my student time end of these sixties I experienced the ‘explosion’ of this change in the cultural revolution (May ’68). Started by students in the big European cities, this wave of a new way of life and society came in my Technical University in the city of Eindhoven dur-ing the spring and summer of ’70. A huge change in education at the fresh started Faculty of Architecture and Urban Design at the TU/e was caused by 2nd and 3rd year students, from formal lessons into more useful practical society questions in project education, done by students themselves. In the society this change appeared in new music, films about this freedom of mind and sexual behavior, lots of experiments on different fields. The famous ‘key’ party’s for instance led to a lot of di-vorced marriages. In architecture this change was shown in a new neighborhood called Geestenberg. Free forms of indus-trial housing in ‘boxes’ with more attention to the individual expression and public space. No or less room for cars but more for bicycles, pedestrians, public space and green areas. A new way of urban life was discovered. This new urban de-sign showed the new rules for society at that time: room for individual expression. No row houses anymore but accent on individual exploration in architecture but also for personal de-velopment for man and woman.
The Fransciscus School in Doornakkers became empty in the summer of 2013. In the policy of the owner, the City Depart-ment, this school should be demolished and the free site could be filled in with new housing project. But the city learned about her new identity during the last 20 years. The empty Philips Factories were re-used and have led to a new awareness about urban transformation. More in particular that re-use of old architecture could keep and maintain the right atmosphere in the neighborhood. Examples of this new climate were there already in this part of Eindhoven. For instance the re-use of an old and empty factory called ‘Sectie-C’ gave new impulses to the neighborhood and its inhabitants. Collaboration-O is situ-ated within this Sectie-C complex and is formed with 10 young entrepreneurs who take care about each other and formed a real new collaboration. That is why the empty school was named as a chance for developing and testing concepts for new urban life. The ‘City as a laboratory’ course from the Bra-bant Academy, started already in 2003 as a new impulse from City Department and Technical University, formed the base for this research. The ‘school project’ was defined together with the Social Housing Company Woonbedrijf and City Depart-ment and is about new concepts for living together. Like in a
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
32
very small village people will live together in an old and empty school, church or office and share the care for each other in dif-ferent generations. After the analysis by students of the actual new society in which there seems to be no money anymore to buy your own house and no jobs to start with after your graduation these new generations comes up with very creative ideas to step into a new world. Different concepts were made to solve this problem. One of them is to share an empty build-ing to make a new balance between private and common use of interior space. At the same time the care for each other can be a factor to activate this new balance. Young people, starting up their life with jobs but also with a family and after a while little children can use the capacity of an older generation to fill in their free time to cherish and care for the children. At the same time the younger people can take care for the older ones for technical support in a changing ‘internet’ society or service in the care for daily living. This idea is worked out for the re-use of the Franciscus school in Doornakkers.
The fact that this research is done in a neighborhood that was known as an experimental society in the seventies is no coinci-dence. It leads to the comparing analysis of the social situation in the seventies and nowadays. Moreover the international as-pect of the Russian collaboration makes it even more interest-ing to compare the communes from Europe in the seventies and the ‘forced’ communes in the Soviet age with the ideal-istic ideas of living together from this generation. It seems to me that the actual economic situation can help in this sense that young people have to choose clearly for their future. The cannot copy the way of life of their parents but have to find new ways of dealing with the actual situation with no or few jobs and no more or too expensive new build housing. A so-cial research can lead to a new urban development and use. In the pilot the Dreams of this young people were Dared by them to translate them into Do-actions. The Dream Dare DO (DDD)-project in Yekaterinburg has led to a concrete transla-tion that can be worked out tomorrow. The school is empty, there is a small budget from the Social Housing Company to change the interior to make it fit or suitable for a new social ex-periment called 60+/30-. Two generations, living together un-der one roof and sharing more then only the stairs or hallway to get to the own private apartment or room. In the worked out floor plan there is only a small room for private use like a bedroom and bathroom for each person. The rest of the for-mer classrooms are used for common space like living, library, computer or television room, dining room, kitchen, children room. ‘From commune to community’ is the theme in which this new ideals will be announced and talked about during the NERU-Conference.
So it is about more social design thinking on a larger and more abstract scale to share new concepts for social behavior and way of life for a new generation in a nearby future. It is a very interesting theme for dialogue on the 18th of October.
27th September 2013Cees Donkers
33
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
RESEARCH
Commune
A commune is an intentional community of people living to-gether, sharing common interests, properties, possessions, re-sources, and, in some communes, work and income. For many communes, core principles have become as important as the communal economy, consensus decision-making, non-hierar-chical structures and ecological living. Andrew Jacobs from The New York Times wrote that, contrary to popular misconcep-tions, “most communes of the ‘90s are not free-love refuges for flower children, but well-ordered, financially solvent co-operatives where pragmatics, not psychedelics, rule the day.” There are many contemporary intentional communities all over the world, a list of which can be found at the Fellowship for Intentional Community.
Categorization of communitiesBenjamin Zablocki categorized communities this way:
•Alternative-family communities•Cooperative communities•Countercultural communities•Egalitarian communities•Political communities•Psychological communities (based on mystical or gestalt prin-ciples)•Rehabilitational communities (see Synanon)•Religious communities•Spiritual communities•Experimental communities
34
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
Team
Victoria KhokhlovaSophie Steinemann
Communes around the world
With the simple definition of a commune as an intentional community with 100% income sharing, the online directory of the FIC lists 186 communes world wide (17 Aug 2011). Many cultures naturally practice communal living, and wouldn’t des-ignate their way of life as a planned ‘commune’ per se, though their living situation may have many characteristics of a com-mune.
Core principles of communes
The central characteristics of communes, or core principles that define communes, have been expressed in various forms over the years. Before 1840 such communities were known as “communist and socialist settlements”; by 1860, they were also called “communitarian” and by around 1920 the term “in-tentional community” had been added to the vernacular of some theorists. At the beginning of the 1970s, “The New Com-munes” author Ron E. Roberts classified communes as a sub-class of a larger category of Utopias. He listed three main char-acteristics. Communes of this period tended to develop their own characteristics of theory though, so while many strived for variously expressed forms of egalitarianism Roberts’ list should never be read as typical. Roberts’ three listed items were: first, egalitarianism - that communes specifically rejected hierarchy or graduations of social status as being necessary to social or-der. Second, human scale - that members of some communes considered as the scale of society, as it was then organised as being too industrialised (or factory sized) and therefore unsym-pathetic to human dimensions. And the third, the conscious anti-bureaucracy of the communes. Twenty five years later, Dr. Bill Metcalf, in his book “Shared Visions, Shared Lives” defined communes with the following core principles: the importance of the group as opposition to the nuclear family unit; a “com-mon purse”, a collective household, group decision making in general and intimate affairs; sharing everyday life and facilities. A commune is an idealised form of family, a new sort of “pri-mary group” (generally with fewer than 20 people, although again there are outstanding examples of much larger com-munes or communes that experienced episodes with much larger populations). Commune members have emotional bonds to the whole group rather than to any sub-group, and the commune is experienced with emotions which go beyond just social collectivity.
35
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
HOUSE COMMUNE
The word “commune” (kommuna) became a regular part of the Soviet lexicon right after the October Revolution. “House Com-mune” or Communal Dwelling (dom-kommuna) designated a structure or cluster of them designed for collective and commu-nal life. Some of the first projects for commune-housing were very ambitious (Leonid Vesnin’s Moscow housing ensemble of 1922): a dozen buildings, including club, bath-house, technical shack, daycare and kindergardens, and residential buildings, with a large play area between them. It was in fact what we call a “garden court apartment complex,” spacious and self-sufficient, with common services including a place for social-izing. Other buildings were designed based more on real-life experience. House Commune usually consisted of a long block of apartments (sometimes with a penthouse and roof garden), connected by an enclosed bridge to a block of collective facili-ties. As advertised by the architects, the apartments were to form an intervention into the everyday life of the inhabitants. By offering Communal facilities such as kitchens, creches and laundry as part of the block, the tenants were encouraged into a more socialist and, by taking women out of their traditional roles, feminist way of life. The structure was thus to act as a ‘so-cial condenser’ by including within it a library and gymnasium. The Narkomfin Building is a block of flats in Moscow, Russia, designed by Moisei Ginzburg with Ignaty Milinis for workers at the Commissariat of Finance (shortened to Narkomfin). It was an opportunity for architects to try out many of the theories advanced by the Constructivist OSA group in the course of the 1920s on architectural form and communal living. The avant-garde community (notably, Ginzburg and Konstantin Melnikov) designed such model units, relying on vertical separation of bedroom (top level) and combined kitchen and living room (lower level). Ilya Golosov implemented these cells for his Col-lective House in Ivanovo; Pavel Gofman for communal hous-ing in Saratov. Apartments were graded by how far along they were to being ‘fully collectivised’, ranging from rooms with their own kitchens to apartments purely for sleep and study. Most of the units belong to “Cell K” type (with double-height living room) and “Cell F” connecting to an outdoor gallery. The most interesting social issue about commune houses was that of the kitchen and the family. It is a singular fact that to this day the individual kitchen is the strongest symbol of a nuclear family (as it once was its main meeting place). Classical House Commune theory had always made the collectivized kitchen its central tenet: to save costs, promote eating together, and rescue housewives from the slavery of kitchen life.
36
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
“House Commune”-“socialism in one building”
-communalizing services, -release women/men from repetitive domestic work -raise national labor productivity -promote a spirit of communism -allowing some privacy as well-“de-familization”-separation of children from parents
V. Kuzmin “Problems of the Scientific Organization of Everyday Life” Kuzmin offered a “graph of life” — not as an enforceable regulation (“man is not an automaton”) but as a guide for join-ing architectural design with the daily life in a communal situ-ation.
10:00 P.M.6:00 A.M.6:05 A.M.6:15 A.M.6:20 A.M.6:25 A.M.6:28 A.M.6:43 A.M.6:45 A.M.6:50 A.M.7:00 A.M.3:00 P.M.3:10 P.M.3:17 P.M.3:25 P.M.3:55 P.M.3:58 P.M.4:58 P.M.5:08 P.M.5:10 P.M.5:25 P.M.9:25 P.M.9:50 P.M.10:00 P.M.
Lights out. Eight hours of sleep. Calisthenics — 5 min. Toilet — 10 min. Shower (optional — 5 min.) Dress — 5 min. To the dining room — 3 min.Breakfast — 15 min. To the cloakrooms — 2 min.Put on outdoor clothing — 5 min. To the mine — 10 min.Work in the mine — 8 hours.To the commune — 10 min.Take off outdoor clothing — 7 min.Wash — 8 min. Dinner — 30 min. To the rest room for free hour — 3 min. Free time. Toilet and change — 10 min. To the dining room — 2 min. Tea — 15 min. Cultural development. Gymnastics. Alloted time: four hours.Dining room, supper, eat — 25 min. Prepare to retire — 10 min.
37
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
KOMMUNALKA
A communal apartment or ” kommunalka” appeared in the So-viet Union following the Russian revolution. Communal apart-ments emerged as a response to the housing crisis in urban areas and were a product of the “new collective vision of the future”. A communal apartment was typically shared between two to seven families, and it revolutionary “united different social groups in one physical space.” Each family had its own room, which served as a living room, dining room, and bed-room for the entire family. The hallways, kitchen, bathroom and telephone were shared among all the residents. The com-munal apartment was the predominant form of housing in the USSR for generations, and still exist in “the most fashionable central districts of large Russian cities.”
Space in communal apartments was divided into common spaces and private rooms “mathematically or bureaucrati-cally,” with little to no attention paid to the physical space of the existing structures. Residents were meant to share some rooms, but even these spaces could be divided. For example, each family might have their own kitchen table, gas burner, doorbell, and even light switch, preferring to walk down the hall to use their light switch to turn on the bathroom lights rather than using a closer switch belonging to another resi-dent. Furthermore, the hallways were often poorly lit, because each family had control of one of the lights hanging in the cor-ridor, and would only turn it on for their own benefit. Though communal apartments were relatively small, residents had to wait at times to use the bathroom or kitchen sink. The kitchen was the primary place the residents interacted with one an-other and scheduling shared responsibilities. Wary of theft, residents rarely left groceries in the kitchen unless they put locks on the kitchen cabinets. However, they often stored their toiletries in the kitchen as opposed to the bathroom, because other residents could more easily use things left unattended in the bathroom. Laundry was left to dry in both the kitchen and the bathroom. The communal apartment was the only liv-ing accommodation in the Soviet Union where the residents had “no particular reason to be living together.” Other forms of communal living were based around type of work or other commonalities, but the communal apartment residents were placed together by a governing body. These residents had little commitment to communal living or to each other. In spite of the haphazard nature of their cohabitation, residents had to navigate communal living, which required share responsibili-ties and reliance on one another. Spying was especially preva-lent in the communal apartment, because of the extremely close quarters people lived in. It was not unusual for a neighbor to look or listen into another resident’s room or the common room and to gossip about others. Furthermore, the commu-
38
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
nal apartment was “a breeding ground of police informants,” people were encouraged to denounce their neighbors, and often did so to ensure safety for themselves or to gain their neighbor’s room for themselves after they had them evicted or imprisoned.
In spite of all these challenges, many former residents of com-munal apartments look back fondly on the sense of family they had with their neighbors. When asked which she would prefer, one woman who lived her whole life in a communal apartment in St. Petersburg said: “It’s better to live in a communal apart-ment, a large one, in a historic Petersburg district, than in a pri-vate housing complex. In a housing complex there’s some kind of disconnection, life is more boring... Everybody is on their own. And here we’re like one big family. If someone is in trou-ble, it gets shared. Or a joy, you share that too... It works out very well. ”The Russian poet and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Brodsky, who grew up in a communal apartment in Leningrad, wrote: “For all of the despicable aspects of this mode of exist-ence, a communal apartment has its redeeming side as well. It bares life to its basics, it strips off any illusions about human nature.”
Valentina Baskina grew up in a large communal apartment in the center of Moscow, in the 1930s. Her entire family lived, ate and slept in one room. “I don’t remember that we visit-ed each other or made some communal food. No, each fam-ily lived their own life, but it was very peaceful. Every family had children, so children became “a communal responsibility.” With friend of mine I spent a lot of daytimes sitting on top of a large dresser in corridor and playing imaginary games. My mother worked as a truck driver, so she had to leave me at home by myself. When I got married, my husband moved in with my family. We shared the room with my older brother, two younger sisters, mother, and grandmother. It was not com-fortable. But nevertheless we lived and enjoyed. And we didn’t feel it as a problem, because we couldn’t compare it.”
Moscow architect Andrei Barbje grew up in a large apartment that had belonged to his great-grandfather before the Revo-lution. “I remember my parents actively disliked living in the communal apartment, but I didn’t mind it when I was young . Everyone in our kommunalka did their best to get along, by fol-lowing an elaborate system of rules. For instance, there was an unspoken order of people who went to wash in the morning, based on what time they had to get to work. The communal kitchen had four stoves, and each family used two burners. But if someone was having dinner guests, they could always ask to borrow one or two burners. No one ate in the kitchen; they
took the food back their room. They also kept refrigerators in their room. Still, we all celebrated the holidays together. There was a ritual: We’d visit each other’s rooms, and sit for half an hour or so. It was always customary when you visited to bring a small gift, so it was all very friendly. And even now, some years later, before I do something, I always think about whether this will bother someone else. It’s about self control, and learning to take responsibility for your actions from a very young age, simply because you’re surrounded by so many people.”
39
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
EXPERIENCE
Luca Paroni
I live in a small studio with my own bathroom and I share the kitchen with 5 other people. The building where I live is owned by a company called Vestide that has an agreement with the University, so the fee I pay for the flat, located in the city centre and really closed to the University, is not that high. This campus is for PHD, PDeng, PostDoc students or company employees (like me) only.
So, I don’t really have roommates but only people who share the kitchen with me, sometimes we barely see each other but its OK for me. I like to have my privacy. Rooms are well fur-nished, so there have been no need to buy extra stuffs. The lack of space in the apartment always push me to furnish my room carefully. So, I need to think twice, before buying new sofa or chair. When I lived in Milan, I used to share an apartment with my classmate. In Milan, usually people search for an apartment by themself, so in this case they have to deal with the owners of the flats avoiding having an agreement with a company like Vestide. I was lucky to find the people who agreed to sign an of-ficial contract with me, telling that I’ve rented the flat. Unfortu-nately, it is not that common in Milan, so people end up living in the flats having so called ‘black contract’. In this case people have no guarantee for the period of time they can stay in the flat and also the price they need to pay. Politecnico di Milano, University where I study, recently trying to change the situa-tion, providing students with the apartments with fare prices.
Maria Chernaya
My experience is related only to those communities that exist in some way apart, but inside they were created to become a counterweight space for attempts to build an alternative life-style. In case of the community, I mean, of course, the punk scene in which prevails the idea of mutual support - at least in theory, although in practice it is more complicated. This “fam-ily”, where people help each other and inspire new businesses. You have to do everything on your own, but there are always people to support you. So the Commune was for me some-thing idealized during my teenagerhood. Later I realized that this form of being seemed to me a bit unhealthy, when some time passes and people start to fight because of women or the distribution of responsibilities. I’m more into modern city com-mune without any ideas -I call this any apartment, where sev-eral people or families live, most of my friends co-exist in this way. They may be all from the same party or all of them do not eat meat, but no sectarianism, which I strongly object. I had an unusual experience when I was a child.I lived in an eco-com-mune for a month. It was a huge area, there was one man who was a manager, and a few women who were in a very unclear relationships with him, including his wife, who was totally out of her mind. They were often visited by lunatics of all kinds- to learn the wisdom, because these people were trying to build a noosphere, isolated from the wicked world, considered their land abnormal point. They also restored the ecosystem on the road, kept a luxurious garden, a vegetable garden and apiary. I was 13 when I lived there,I was on the vacation but every day I worked from 8 am -only women worked in the commune and the man wrote the article. My father was a friend of this man, and took me there because there was nature, forest and two rivers. It was really cool. Nowadays I miss our urban yard culture. I’m from the province, my home was next to the rail-road. This co-op house in which everyone were united by one thing - the camps in the Komi Republic. So, everyone knew each other. I arranged exhibitions and performances with all the kids at home, we called everyone - it was okay to ring on the door and call to someone to come. On New Years eve we exchanged with candies. We took out to the yard inflatable pool for children and a tape recorder. Right beside we dried laundry. Grandmother sang songs on the bench, looked after us. This is almost gone, but a special spirit is still there. I think it may be a commune.
40
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
41
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
?42
Questionnaire
1. How do you understand term “community” ? 2. Can you imagine your living in a commune house? 3. How much private space do you need to feel yourself com-fortable - in square meters, furniture etc. 4. Are you ready to share some house space with others? And what rooms could it be - kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, work-ing space, etc ? And which rooms should be just your private? 5. With whom could you share a house - friends, relatives, oth-ers? what age? what profession? how many people could you live with? 6. How long could you stay in this house? in which period of your live / till which period of your live? 7. What reasons could make you live in a such house ? maybe it’s cause of real need to share, or if you need somebody’s care and attention, or some financial situation, or something else?
LucaR&D Engineer, Eindhoven, Netherlands28Single
I see commune as a place where you live with other people sharing common space, tools and where you make decisions and look for a solutions together about the place you are living. I imagine it like a big house, with a lot of rooms, with a lot of people all busy doing something. I would like to have quite a big place only for myself, even if I live in a common space. The private place, where I can do whatever I want and spend some time all on my own. I’m already to live in a place where I share the kitchen. I don’t know exactly what I would share more. I could live with 20 – 30 people in one house (with friends or people with a similar background or in general with students). Perhaps I could stay in commune house up to the time I feel like changing my life because of personal reasons. I would like to live there in reason to save some money and use what I save to travel when I can.
AlenaArchitect34Married
Commune – society which is united by common opinions and interests. I’m not sure whether it is possible to call our home “commune”. Four generations under one roof, where the only shared interest – upbringing of children and mutual support of middle and senior generations. As a private I need mini-mum of 50 m2. Bedroom, kitchen, living room, working space.. everything you can’t imagine yourself without. I could share bedroom just with my husband. And I could live together with closest relatives, in our house there are 8 of them. All of my life, depending on possibilities and appropriateness. And the main reasons for me are care and mutual help.
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
43
ErikStudent in software development 26 In couple
“Community” : just à group of people. “Commune” : people liv-ing in a particular area with something in common. Yes , I could live in commune house. I need something like 15 m²private space with : bed , desk , computer , wardrobe, shower and WC. And I can share all house space and all the rooms except my working space. It’s comfortable for me to share a space with: my family /girlfriend/friends (of all ages), don’t care of their profession, with maximum of 4 people in the house. if it’s my family (my wife with children) so it is for all my life , if it’s my friends/or parents just during my studies. There is no particu-lar reason which could make me live in a such house , it’s just live’s circumstances , and it’s normal for human to live in social groups ,it’s not an obligation.
Sylvie Student 22 Single
Community is a group of persons linked for a reason. Yes, I can imagine my living in a commune house. I need 15m2 approxi-mately for my private space, a desk, bed etc. I could share with others everything except bedroom. Friends could be as neigh-bors, or strangers but with a selection. In ages about 25-35. I could live with anybody but not a no active person. I don’t know for how long, it depending on my future.
RomanDesigner32In couple
It’s not really good for me to share a living or working space with somebody. It could be quite ok if I was a student, but for sure just if there were not a lot of roommates. From the other hand, it could be comfortable if every person had a pri-vate room. A necessary minimum of private space is needed but it all depends on the situation, for instance, if there are people who are involved in similar kind of activities and share the same values it might be enough to have just a standard working space, but if they are not then it’s necessary to have a private room. I could share a house with people only of my age or older. I can’t stand people younger than me, I know it from my experience. I wouldn’t like to share bedroom and working space, the rest is ok. But still it depends on the situation and people around me.
MikhailHead of fleet management36Married, has a 4-year old child
I need to have not less private space then a do now. I mean family space should remain the same. I’m ready to share more common areas with other people. For instance: library or a yard. Of course common interests are important. But actually I think I’m not a commune type of person. I think commune is totally not for everyone. Well, maybe for many people but not for a long time. It might be interesting while you are young and interested in something. When you are a grown up with a fam-ily and a lot of work private space becomes more important than permanent opportunity to communicate with congenial souls. But maybe in 30 years it’s very possible - then you need less private space.
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
ArtemEngineer at the automatization technologies institute24Single
Well, since it’s been in a very long time since I’m in a sort of musical community, I can say that the most relevant commu-nity in my understanding is an association of people with com-mon interests, who develop their ideas, mutually help each other in this, and so on. Well, they might have totally oppo-site opinions on something, but in the community we’re still talking about the commonality.Commune probably implies a closer relationship between its participants. Accommodation “under one roof”. With common “economy” roughly speaking )For me, this is not a problem. Especially if it is interesting, people who are nice to me, who we share a lot with. Personal space: a small room — maximum. With a bed. It is desirable to share toilet and bathroom not with a million people, but at least one for two or three rooms, it’s based on the harsh reali-ties. ) ) This is pretty much it. But I’m not very representative, I have a distorted perception of reality, after seven years in a dorm ) Well the commune house is all about the interests but the interests tend to change. And I see myself in this homes as long as it keeps me interested. Untill I have no family, no chil-dren. I think when I do it will be too much for everyone: for me and for the kids and the neighbors)
Karolina Government and municipal management27Divorced
For me commune is a group of people that live together based on collective property. And community is a group of people that have similar interests. With getting older a person chang-es his or her views. When I was a student I would love to live in a commune. It could have helped to develop my communi-cational and psychological skills. Being able to catch people’s moods and deal with them is a very useful skill. Now I have a small child and for this period I would never agree in circum-stances like this. In a birth house there were just three of us young mothers and it was horrible. Too much noise and chil-dren crying. Moreover when there is a small child in a house you need to be able to control the level of noise, the penetra-tion of side sounds, sanitary norms and so on. It is impossible in a commune. Maybe when he is a bit elder I would consider an option of living in a commune, but at a condition that there will be kids of his age. It’s useful for kids because they start to learn from each other and a child being busy might make his mothers’ life much easier. And of course you may leave your child with another parent to be taken care of. It is kind of a kindergarten with big number of nannies. I think it is accept-able. I would call my private space several things. A bedroom where I could also put a working space. (no less than 16 m2 for all). A bathroom which might be not very spacious but private. Maybe a small kitchen 6-8 square meters. Where a person can be alone for a while. A small oven, small fridge and zone with sofa. The rooms I am ready to share: laundry room; storage room; well-equipped kitchen for an opportunity to cook differ-ent complicated dishes; living room, well-equipped and ready to receive a certain amount of guests, with good sound sys-tem and a TV. In conclusion I’m gonna sum everything up. Such communes might be a good thing if the residents are precisely selected by certain uniting criteria. Such as: temperament, level of emotionality, preferences, horoscope, interests (for instance a hunter might be not a very good match for animal defender). To avoid conflicts of interests, the main thing is for people to be united by similar parameters to lower the level of discomfort. However this kind of living is both financial benefit and a lot of care and support.
44
MarieJournalist, writer, graphic designer23Single
This is a very interesting question because my idea of com-munes and community suddenly brightened for me right after it - I have not thought about it before. Let’s start with the fact that I probably would not have started to live in a commune. But if that happened, I would like to have my personal space, a room and a chair in a common room. My own locker in the kitchen and in the bathroom. So that I could mourn for a stupid music in my own corner if I need. But the other day - to arrange the whole commune crazy celebration, because when there are many people, and you have a space, you can do incredible things. I miss our urban yard culture. I’m from the province, my home was next to the railroad. This co-op house in which eve-ryone were united by one thing - the camps in the Komi Repub-lic. So, everyone knew each other. I arranged exhibitions and performances with all the kids at home, we called everyone - it was okay to ring on the door and call to someone to come. And in the new year we did exchange of candies. We took out to the yard inflatable pool for children, a tape recorder. Right be-side we dried laundry. Grandmother sang songs on the bench, looked after us. This is almost gone, but a special spirit is still there. I think it may be a commune.
SergeiArtist50Divorced
I used to work in a workshop 5m2 for five years, and it was enough for me. It would be even fine for the rest of my life if there also be some room of 5m2 for relax. Now I am living in 90m2 and I can’t cope with this space properly, it tends to be-come messy. Although from time to time, when there is some big project spacious house comes in handy. Even pre-raphael-ites were dreaming of their own home-commune for artists, but only for themselves by the way. Generally speaking it is hard to live in a commune, as well as in “communal flat” or dormitory as I used to live. Living in a commune means that all its members live as a family with some special rules, and you either follow them or you are out. For me commune is like a beehive. But if you look at them patiently you would see dif-ference between them and us. Bees are all equal more or less, they live for one purpose, whereas people would be tear apart all the time by their temperament and inner diversity and com-plexity. I guess, people could live together if they share com-mon interests, profound deep matters that concern them, not superficial one. Although, even in this case they ought to be some rules, which people should follow.
45
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
LOCATION
The St. Francis School was founded as a girls school by the sisters of the convent in the Limburg Heythuyzen. In 1966 the sisters and parents from the district formed a private school board. In 1968 the school became a mixed school. The school was formed in 1985 from the nursery and primary school. From 1966 to 2002 the school was led by director Guy van der Horst. He left a big mark on the history of the school. In 2000 The St. Francis School joined the Protestant Catholic Education Foundation. Before that it was the only primary school in Ein-dhoven with its own management, which is very uncommon for our region. The last director, Miriam Smisek, said that the school was or fifty years of existence, but was very forward-looking. In 2008 the school merged with the primary Tongelaar, which is also in the district. That would be the new school that would become part of the center to be built in neighborhood Tongelrese Akkers.
46
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
PLANS OF OLD SCHOOL BUILDING
47
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
MEANING OF THE SCHOOL
The school. A place to aquire and transfer knowledge.Why to reuse the Franscicus school? The Fransciscus school is not just any empty and unused building but it is also in good repair. A school or rather a class is also kind of a community: sharing and learning in and as a group, is essential. In this sense the school seems to be the perfect place to realize this kind of pro-ject. Qualification, socialisation and identification are terms to define the meaning of a school, but also became important for our undersanding of a community in general.
Qualification
Preparing for professional life, private life and social functions. The older generation can share their knowledge with younger people that are trying to start up their professional life.
Socialisation
Transfer of a certain social behaviour and fundamental values of society. The „community members“ can share their values in an active way and initiate a change in society.
Identification
Self-identification within a society.
50
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
WAY OF LIVING
With a critical eye we look back in time and learn from past ex-periences, like the ‘kommunalkas’ and the ‘hippy comunities’. This knowledge can be used to create new ways of living in a developed society. ‘Community’ becomes the keyword in our research in understanding now a days needs of the people. It describes a growing mentality of cooperation and a strong de-sire for sharing and exchange. In this concept of ‘new living’ we show the results of our research on the basis of two different approaches.
COMMUNITY
CARE
-being an active part of society-the future-being independent & responsible-themselves-other people
SHARE
-property & possessions-knowledge
-interests & ideas-resources
-time
WHY?
51
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
WHY 60PLUS30MINUSCOMMUNITY ?
Situation
-People want to share and discover new ways of living-People are ready to live in a community-People in need
-Lonely-Divorce-Lack of time-Integration-Financical Situation-Generation gap in the future (many old people)
Solution
Can complete each others needs because of different living en-vironment and needs:
-Give each other a company-Donate time (child care)-Share knowledge-Pass of traditions-Share resources (cooking, cleaning)
52
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
60+
30-
53
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
KNOWLEDGE EXPERIENCE TRADITIONS COMPANY CARE SKILLS TIME MOOD
KNOWLEDGE EXPERIENCE TRADITIONS COMPANY CARE SKILLS TIME MOOD
TRANSLATIONCONCEPT A
“Community Housing”
Similar to a student housing.
Private living space with individual or shared bath and small kitchen + one big community room
- shared kitchen space with a big dinning table- living space with corner and library- entertainment corner [ kicker, board games]- laundry room- shared garden
Private space:For one resident - 27,5 m2in total - 17 private rooms
Community space:65 m2 in the first floor92 m2 in the second floor
Conclusion:
+ easy & pragmatic solution
- not for “growing” a new community more like a usual student housing people don’t really share, but just coexist in one house most of time people stay in their rooms idea is not innovative
54
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
3200 3500
1400
2700
5700
3600
3200
4800
3500
2800
3600
3200
4800
3500
2800
3200 3500
1400
2700
5700 COMMUNITY ROOM
55
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
‘Cube’Separate unit with bathroom, kitchen and cupboards.
TRANSLATIONCONCEPT B
56
Private space is limited. But there is a very big shared space where the residents can find private moments. Every resi-dent has got just small bedroom (about 6-10 m2) as private and bathroom (shared or not). This is how every person in the house provided with minimal private space to stay alone if it is necessary, to storage all the possessions and to organize it in personal way. All the other rooms in the house are semi-public, they “work” for all the commune’s residents. People share a big kitchen with dinning room, living room with TV corner, gar-dens, library, work spaces, nap room, children’s room, laundry. All this rooms connected with the main axis, so people meet each other when they move through all the shared rooms by the way to their own bedroom. The idea is to leave the de-cision how to organize the shared space to the community. Every resident has the responsibility for the shared space in front of his own room. So together with neighbor he become the “owner” of semi-private space in commune house. They make decisions about organizing this space mutually. The same way they decide if they want to “invite” house’s community to come in to their room or not. In this way residents have got a feeling like they are “owners” of this space and can do with this room whatever they want. This is how there are a lot of differ-ent spaces with strong individuality in one house. At the same time everybody feels a bit like a “guest” in neighbor’s semi-private space. Residents have an opportunity to regulate space around. They can expand their semi-private space or reduce it at all for some periods.
INVERT SHARED AND PRIVATE SPACE
Concept A
Concept B
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12131415161718192021
57
The main axis throw the joint shared space
Spaces in the commune house
Partial invertation shared space into private space
Deviding shared space into semi-private parts. Option 1
Deviding shared space into semi-private parts. Option 2
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
SEMI-PRIVATE SEMI-PRIVATE SEMI-PRIVATE SEMI-PRIVATE
PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE
SEMI-PRIVATEPRIVATE
PRIVATE
SEMI-PUBLIC
SEMI-PUBLIC SEMI-PUBLIC SEMI-PUBLIC SEMI-PUBLIC SEMI-PUBLIC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12131415161718192021
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12131415161718192021
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12131415161718192021
Use corridor for private space, but place a new wall to extend the private space. This extra-space expands bathroom and also functions as a place to store all the goods and chattels.
74 M238 M2
58
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
BEDROOM 6,45-9,6 M2PRIVATE BATHROOM 3,25 M2
BEDROOM 17,7 M2PRIVATE BATHROOM 4,75
BEDROOM 6,75 M2SHARED BATHROOM 4,25 M2
BEDROOM 7,8 -11,8 M2+ EXTRA SPACE - 3,5 -5,5 M2PRIVATE BATHROOM 3,2-4,2 M2
BEDROOM 6,0 M2+ EXTRA SPACE - 2,4 M2PRIVATE BATHROOM 3,4 M2
BEDROOM 6,8 M2+ EXTRA SPACE - 3,4 M2PRIVATE BATHROOM 3,4 M2
59
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
60
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
FLEXIBILITYTRANSFORMATIONRECOMBINATION
Options with swivel walls
Variations of organizing shared bathroom and kitchen
61
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF THE HOUSE COMMUNE
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
62
DAILY ROUTES OF COMMUNES RESIDENTS
CR
OSS
-GEN
ERAT
ION
AL
PRO
JEC
T.
FRO
M C
OM
MU
NE
TO C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
63
SEMI-PUBLIC SPACE IN THE COMMUNE HOUSE
“Woonbedrijf” is one in the largest housing companies in the Netherlands and specialized in rent, sale, building and reusing of living houses. Soon this company will have an old school building in their property and they want to turn it into living houses/apartments. Our task was to make a few proposals for reuse of this old building.
So we developed two different options for this building:
-A hostel for students-A house for family
Option for students
In our opinion every young person wants to spend time with his friends. Because a lot of students come from abroad to study at TU/e or Design Academy and they feel lonely in a new city. So we wanted to create comfortable conditions for stud-ing, relaxing, preparing food and have fun together. That’s why in our options we tried to connect all the functions together.Apartment for family. The first idea was to divide a building in to different apartments. The entrance of each on the first floor will be from the street side. The most successful in our opin-ion is the option with flexible walls. With the help of that the owner could create absolutely different space in their house. The second idea is to create a townhouse. So we divide a build-ing into new sections and each apartment will have two floors. There are also different plan options.
CONCEPTS OF THE OLD SCHOOL BUILDING REUSE
Team
Emilia SochoshkoAnna Medvedeva
CON
CEP
TS O
F TH
E O
LD S
CH
OO
L B
UIL
DIN
G R
EUSE
64
CON
CEP
TS O
F TH
E O
LD S
CH
OO
L B
UIL
DIN
G R
EUSE
65
EXTRA ACTIVITIESLIVELY CITIES WORKSHOP
North West European Lively cities placemaking tour.
We had a chance to work for a short brainstorming session in collaboration with Dutch students. During the workshop we had several Placemaking sessions about the Sint Joseph site at the city of Eindhoven. We worked together with Dutch stu-dents, residents and local architects. Different groups had to answer questions about subjects like visibility, identity, vari-ation and flexibility of functions and time. First groups went out to check the location with a local guy. He gave us more information about the buildings present on the site of St. Jo-seph: what functions they have and how they influence the surrounding open spaces. Finally the different groups gave a presentation containing their concepts for a better place.
66
EXTR
A A
CTI
VIT
IES
EXTRA ACTIVITIESLIVELY CITIES WORKSHOP
67
EXTR
A A
CTI
VIT
IES
PLAKKEN IN DOORNAKKERS
68
In one of the last days of summer we were invited to be a part of a creative action in the square of the old Tongelaar School. Chil-dren and adults from all over the neighborhood built houses with cardboard, packing materials and tape. With Elena Lovich, Marijke Spekman and Mini Smulders they taped a big map of the neigh-borhood on the floor in school yard and put there new houses, factories and other buildings made of reused materials. Local busi-nessman acted as a sponsor of this event and all the participants tried biological bread from neighbor bakery and fruits from turkish shop.
EXTR
A A
CTI
VIT
IES
SHADOW CITY PROJECT
Sunlight and shadows are the materials in a public space instal-lation by Izabela Boloz in the picturesque district of Østerbro in Copenhagen. Shadow City comes alive with the rising sun, casting shadows of house facades across a 100 meter wall on the Sortedam Lake. A playful image of a city appears, inspired by the history of Copenhagen, and changes as it slowly moves across the wall with the changing position of the sun.
69
EXTR
A A
CTI
VIT
IES
COLOPHON
COLO
PHO
N
This publication is produced in the collaboration with the municipality of Eindhoven
Printed by Repro of the municipality of Eindhoven
OrganizationCees Donkers
CooperationKoj KoningEllis KluijtJan van de VenYolanda van Els
EditingVictoria Khokhlova
Graphic DesignMichael Skachkov
The Netherlands Eindhoven 2013
70
Eindhoven
