The Adaptable Dwelling

How does the Open Building and flexible design perform in residential
architecture?

Thesis Report
Jonas Bäckström
Umeå School of Architecture
2022-04-13
Abstract:

Designing for flexibility and adaptability in residential architecture is a way to adhere to the changing
needs of a building, let the user be influential in the design, improve the sustainability and the user
satisfaction of the dwelling. Buildings designed in this way emerged roughly half a century ago and
has been socially, technically and politically re-writing the rules for residential architecture. Starting
from the basics of Open building design, the support and infill, this thesis examines the conditions for
flexible and adaptable dwelling design, its viability and long-term performance. Through literature
review, lectures and case studies, conclusions have been drawn on how flexible and adaptable
architecture performs. Flexible and adaptable architecture can improve the quality of dwellings by
conforming to the user’s needs and local knowledge and resources. Research shows that this way of
designing and building has potential, and examples from real life proves that flexible and adaptable
residential architecture is successful as long as the right measures are implemented during the design-
and planning phase, construction phase and future use. The challenges that face developers in this way
of building has been addressed differently throughout different projects. By analyzing and comparing
these projects, conclusions can be drawn on how well the different strategies work. Although stated
that this way of building can improve residential architecture and user satisfaction, whether this way or
the conventional way is better is a matter of debate that will continue in the future. The aim with this
research is not to prove that this way of building is better than the conventional way, but rather to
assess the viability of Open buildings and test new ideas.

Glossary:
Flexibility = The ability to change the physical elements of a space, either by re-modelling or mobile
solutions.
Permanency = Used to describe building elements that are made to remain unchanged for as long as
possible.
Radical = Fundamental change in the way domestic space is designed and used.
Introduction:
Cities and dwellings are not static elements, but in constant development. Therefore, buildings should
be considered and treated as the adaptable and dynamic architectural infrastructures that they are.
Usually, residential buildings are designed with a high level of detail, with all spaces, functions and
building elements regarded as permanent. Yet, buildings have different users and usage over time
which forces them to change.
Open Buildings are buildings designed for flexibility and adaptability. They are constructed in a way
so that they can be relatively easy to transform and remodel according to changing needs. These needs
may be programmatical or user preferences. This concept defines buildings as two main parts, support,
and infill. The support is a permanent infrastructure, and the infill is a matter of choice for the user. 1,2
The notion of treating buildings as changeable spaces is common in the design of offices and
commercial space, but still radical in residential architecture. The architectural phenomenon of users
appropriating their dwelling space is parallel with the phenomenon of having the building and its
spatial design appropriate the users of it. As humans are deciding on how to use a certain space, that
certain space is also dictating how humans behave. In multi-family housing, inhabitants are limited in
their ability to adapt their units according to their needs and preferences, for example with changing
family constellations. Instead, the design of the units is the result of the client, property owner and
architect, disconnected from the actual users. The design is often highly influenced by market forces
and functionalism.
Apart from offering a more sustainable solution to constructing new spaces, research shows that
flexibility and adaptability in housing is economically viable and profitable. 3,4
This thesis aims to examine flexibility and adaptability in residential architecture, what precedents that
exists and what can be learned from them. What examples of Open buildings in residential architecture
are there and how do they perform? What level of flexibility do they have? What constitutes a
successful open building?

Methodology:
The primary research method for this report has been literature review. Sufficient academic papers and
articles on adaptable and flexible architecture can be found and has been gathered. Additionally, non-
academic references such as lectures and websites by advocates and actors in the professional field of
Open building design has been reviewed.
For the synthesis project, focus has been on projective research, such as designing by sketching,
building, 3D-modelling, photographing and 1:1-scaled testing. The written report has been influencing
the architectural project and vice versa.
The use of case studies has been vital for my thesis research, both for the written report and the
synthesis project.

1
Stephen H. Kendall, Jonathan Teicher. Residential Open Building. 4.
2
Habraken, Uses of Levels. 12.
3
Robert Kronenburg. Flexible Architecture: The Cultural Impact of Responsive Building. 2.
4
Schneider, Till. Flexible Housing: Opportunities and limits. 162.
Research context:
History:
The concept of support and infill was originally developed by Dutch architect N. John Habraken. In
his 1961 book Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing, he describes the ideas of the Open building
and flexible and participatory design.
According to a review by Donald P. Grant of the book, Habraken argued that the current process of
designing and building residential architecture was disrupting the natural relation between the town
planner, the architect and the user. The disciplinary overlap between the architect and the town
planner, and the distance between the architect and the user resulted in a mass-produced residential
architecture lacking individuality. Instead, Habraken argues, the support should work as an
infrastructure, enabled by governmental financing, and the infill should be determined by the user
together with the architect. While the support would be a long-term existing structure, the infill should
be a more dynamic element in line with changing needs. 5
Benefits of flexible and adaptable architecture:
When it comes to the benefits of flexible and adaptable design, most of the research is devoted to
examining the structural design, project management and financial benefits.
Author Robert Kronenburg argues that, quote: "The benefits of flexible architecture are considerable:
it remains in use longer, fits its purpose better, accommodates users' experience and intervention,
takes advantage of technical innovation more readily, and is economically and ecologically more
viable. It also has greater potential to remain relevant to cultural and societal trends”. Likewise,
Stephan Kendall argues that the Open building is becoming more and more economically viable as
planning and designing for change is becoming more important. 6 Authors Tatjana Schneider and
Jeremy Till argues that flexible use of a building is cheaper in the long run. 7
The benefits of flexibility in housing can also be noted in relation to how conventional apartment
buildings are designed, as explained by Schneider and Till. Instead of prioritizing spatial and material
quality, apartment buildings are often developed in a highly standardized procedure, conforming to the
minimum requirements for each room and function. In areas with high market value, apartment units
work more as investment objects rather than housing. 8 Schneider and Till even argue that apartments
are deliberately designed to lack flexibility in order to stimulate the housing market. 9
Sustainability has a bigger role in the contemporary Open Building agenda compared to the earlier
ideas developed in the 1960s and 70s. Today’s advocates argue that this way of building leads to
increased use of existing structures (Open buildings) and less demolitions and new constructions due
to less material being used. 10,11
However, whether this way of building is more sustainable or less sustainable than conventional
buildings rely on their long-term performance.

5
Donald P. Grant. Review: Supports: an alternative to mass housing by Nikolaas John Habraken. 61.
6
Stephen Kendal. Four decades of Open buildings. 61.
7
Schneider, Till. Flexible Housing: Opportunities and limits. 162.
8
Ibid. 163.
9
Ibid. 164.
10
Stephen Kendall. Open Building: An Approach to Sustainable Architecture. 1.
11
Ana Rita Pereira. Innovating Built Heritage: Adapt The Past To The Future. 2903.
Long-term performance:
Very little research is devoted to examining the long-term performance of Open Buildings, even
though there are plenty of examples that have been around for at least 40-50 years. Authors of
previous presented research claims that flexible design leads to buildings lasting longer, however,
there is very little exemplification of such cases to be found. One article identified, “Post-occupancy
Investigation Of Two Open Building Projects”, by Li Shanshan, aims to examine how well the initial
intention behind these projects performs over time. This article will help to assess the challenges of
Open building design and what makes it work in the long-term.
Both Kronenburg, Schneider and Till argues that Open buildings remain in use longer compared to
conventional buildings. 12,13

Open buildings:
Scales and decision levels:
According to Habraken, the Open Building concept can be applied to the entire range of decision
levels, from the scale of city planning to the design of the individual unit. As explained in the diagram
(fig 1), the different scales are attributed to a certain group of decision makers. From the district
occupants to the room occupants, Habraken argues that they should be influential in the design and
planning of their spaces. Furthermore, as the scale increases, the lifespan also increases. From the
point of flexible design and user influence, this is an important notion as it should be instrumental
when determining the level of flexibility. 14,15

12
Kronenburg. Flexible Architecture: The Cultural Impact of Responsive Building. 59.
13
Schneider, Till. Flexible Housing: Opportunities and limits. 162.
14
Grant. Review: Supports: an alternative to mass housing by Nikolaas John Habraken. 61
15
L.A. van Ellen, B.N. Bridgens, N. Burford, O. Heidrich. Rhythmic Buildings - a framework for sustainable
adaptable architecture. 4.
Shearing layers:
The “Shearing layers” is a concept in architecture and
structural design developed by Frank Duffy and Stewart
Brand that describes the life span of different building This image have been removed in
elements: this publication due to copyright
• Shell: 30-50 years reasons.
• Services: 15 years
• Scenery: 5 years
• Set: Months/weeks
2

Open buildings are constructed according to the life span of different parts. The level of flexibility and
adaptability of each element increases as the life span decreases. The design is made so that each
element can be altered or replaced without affecting other elements. 16
Benefits:
The radical change in multi-family housing from the conventional way of building to the Open
building concept is based on two things: Allowing the user to finalize and change their dwelling, but
also spurring the user to finalize and change their dwelling. The user is not just able to decide on their
own design but also required to take action in the finalizing of their dwelling. Aside from the increased
user satisfaction, this is a shift in, not just residential design but also the politics of domestic life. In
1977, architect Herman Hertzberger designed the Diagoon House (lit. “Diagonal House), a residential
cluster with the support and infill concept. Instead of providing a large cubic open space, each unit
consists of two floors with a split level in between, creating a polyvalence that encourages the user to
appropriate their dwelling space according to their needs and preferences. 17
Open buildings and adaptable architecture is potentially more sustainable than conventional
buildings 18, something that is crucial in the wake of climate change.
Kronenburg argues that user influence leads to better design solutions thanks to local knowledge and
resources. 19
The Molenvliet project
Located in the Netherlands and completed in 1977, this residential project was influenced by
Habraken’s ideas and designed by Frans van der Werf. During construction, each inhabitant was
offered consultation for them to participate in the plan drawing of the infill. The façade differs
between the different dwelling units. According to van der Werf, if the façade layout would be
determined by the architect, as a result, the interior layout would be fixed, as the exterior reflects the
interior. 20
In the study by Shanshan, the long-term use and effects of the Molenvliet ideas were evaluated. A
majority of the tenants participated in the design of their infill at the start of the project. More than
three decades later, they were generally satisfied with their dwelling.21 There was no re-distribution

16
Ana Rita Pereira. Innovating Built Heritage: Adapt The Past To The Future. 2899.
17
Herman Hertzberger. Diagoon Housing Delft. 7-9.
18
Faiza Nakib. Toward an Adaptable Architecture - Guidelines to integrate Adaptability in the Building. 2.
19
Kronenburg. Flexible Architecture: The Cultural Impact of Responsive Building. 3.
20
http://www.vdwerf.nl/molenvliet.html
21
Li Shanshan. Post-Occupancy Investigation of Two Open Building Projects. 96.
 between two adjacent units despite the possibility. 22 Maintenance (imposed by the ones in charge of
the building) proved to be important for the longevity. There were problems with users lacking the
knowledge to renovate or make changes. This could be alleviated by offering a manual for the users on
what changes that are possible and how to implement them. 23
Contemporary view:
When observing cases of residential Open buildings throughout history, the more recent examples
seem to be less radical in terms of architectural design and the level of flexibility. The compromise in
flexibility might be a consequence of adhering to financial conditions, building codes and preferred
architectural style.
One of the contemporary advocates of Open building design is Dutch architect Tom Frantzen. During
the development of two proposals for Open buildings around 2010, one of them which will be
analyzed later in this text, he thought about what level of flexibility that was optimal for housing
design, and how it could be aesthetically pleasing while still adhering to Open building ideals. He
viewed the pioneering ideas from the early 1900’s as dystopian (fig. 3), concluding that the façade and
envelope should be determined by the designer, whereas the interior could be flexible.

This image have been removed

in this publication due to copy-
right reasons.

Sustainability is another important aspect that Frantzen devotes a lot of focus on. Since the matter of
sustainability has risen to become more and more important during the past decades, it is also
addressed within the field of Open buildings. The argument here is that the Open building is more
sustainable because it allows for change over time by using as little new material as possible. 24
Whereas Habraken’s early ideas of the Open building focused more about the social value of allowing
the user to influence their own space, 25 the proponents of flexible architecture nowadays motivate the
same ideas with the importance of sustainability.

22
Ibid. 96.
23
Ibid. 100.
24
https://patch22.nl/sustainability/
25
Grant. Review: Supports: an alternative to mass housing by Nikolaas John Habraken. 60-61.
Challenges:
In order to carry out a systematical analysis of Open buildings and their performance, six different
categories of challenges are defined:
Technical:
The technical challenges in Open building design are mainly about how to design for flexibility
without sacrificing quality. How can the quality of all the elements; structure, façade, heating,
ventilation and other services be of the same quality as in conventional buildings? The goal here is to
be able to separate elements with different life spans so that each element can be altered without
affecting another.
Financial and legal:
Stakeholders might be hesitant to invest in a project that doesn’t have fixed apartment sizes and
layouts. On the other hand, all residential projects risk vacancy, and therefore, Open building projects
can even be more financially viable in the long-term, as stated by some researchers. The legal matter
regarding properties that can change in size and spaces that transfers between units is also complex
and must be addressed during the developing phase and communicated with each owner or tenant.
Building regulations:
Codes and regulations exist in order to guarantee the quality of buildings. Developed for permanent
design solutions, they can pose a threat to Open building projects.
Architectural quality:
When it comes to aesthetical coherency, some contemporary advocates of Open building design such
as Frantzen addresses the problem of coherency in the façade layout by letting this element be fixed,
and therefore designing it himself. Van der Werf on the other hand, believes that the variation instead
celebrates the idea of support and infill. 26
User influence:
Allowing the user to participate in, or even, design their dwelling themselves can be beneficial but also
risky, as most users lack experience in design and construction.
Long-term performance:
The success of an Open building can be defined as three main points:
1. Is it still being re-modelled and adapted according to the needs and preferences of its users
long after its completion?
2. Is it still occupied long after its completion or does it have a high percentage of vacancy?
3. Does it contribute to a more sustainable construction industry by alleviating the need for new
buildings?

26
http://www.vdwerf.nl/molenvliet.html
Cases:
Three different case studies are examined according to how they respond to the challenges of flexible
design, followed by a comparison. The first two cases presented were chosen because they are
contemporary examples, and the third one for its unique and un-precedented way of experimenting
with flexible housing. The cases have different levels of flexibility and different aspects of Open
building implementation. Therefore, different challenges that are relevant for each case will be
discussed. The long-term performance, however, will be discussed in all cases.

Tila Housing Block

Apartment complex in Finland, completed in 2010. Of
all the cases examined, this is the least flexible one. This
project is interesting because of its close proximity to the
This image have been removed in
Swedish context, both in terms of climate and building
regulations. this publication due to copyright
reasons.
Flexible elements:

• Walls within units

• Single/double unit possibility
• Loft space 4

Permanent elements:

• Structure
• Envelope
• Placement of kitchen and bathroom
Meeting the challenges: The most relevant challenges in this case are about user influence, building
regulations and architectural quality. In order to ease legal and regulatory obstacles, buyers were
provided with information on laws and regulation regarding the construction of the interior. According
to interviews carried out as part of a thesis project in 2014, many of the buyers consulted professionals
for the design and construction of the interior. 27 In terms of architectural quality, since only the interior
of each unit is customizable, the larger part of the buildings appearance and performance was in the
hands of the architect. The double height space and windows in two directions provided good
opportunities for the infill. By having the envelope and technical services be determined by the
architect and builder, issues regarding building code were avoided.
Long-term performance: According to the interview, buyers were attracted by both the idea of being
able to customize their apartment and being able to change it as life went along. Some interviewees
did plan to rebuild some parts or imagine that the next owner would rebuild, and some didn’t. The
project resulted in a variation of personalized interior layouts and material choices. Some users
planned to re-model the interior in the event of changed family constellations rather than moving.28
Many of the interviewees concluded that the project could be improved by presenting the buyers with
examples of different configurations and potentials for the dwelling unit. The thesis concluded with
the notion that people generally prefer to participate in the design of their dwelling to a certain degree
and that too much participation regarding technical aspects would risk intimidating them. 29

27
Carolin Franke. Raw Space Housing. 21-29
28
Ibid. 23.
29
Ibid. 21.
Patch 22:
Apartment building project located in the Netherlands,
led by Tom Frantzen and completed in 2014. Thanks to
the technical solution of having the services placed This image have been removed in
below the floor, this building allows for a higher level of
flexibility.
this publication due to copyright
reasons.
Flexible elements:

• Interior walls
• Unit size
• Kitchen and bathroom placement 5

Permanent elements:

• Structure
• Envelope
Meeting the challenges: The most relevant challenges in this case is about technical and legal aspects.
The technical challenges were primarily about how to separate the base building and infill and at the
same time allow for a flexible layout of the services. A concrete core holds the staircases, elevators
and service shafts. Surrounding the core, are glulam columns and beams along with CLT walls on the
sides, making up the primary structure. The services run from the core horizontally in the floor,
making the placement of the kitchen and bathroom flexible for each unit. This technique is, however,
more space consuming than conventional techniques.
Long-term performance: little information is available when it comes to the state of the project today.
When reaching out to the office behind the project, Franzen architects, they said that as of now, some
units have been re-modelled. Two larger apartments have been reconfigured into four smaller
apartments of different size. It seems that the idea of configuring the size and number of units is
working.

Next21
Located in Japan and built 1993, this ongoing experiment
of adaptive housing is the most radical of all cases. The
project focuses on adaptability through modular design This image have been removed in
and sustainability. Passages and stairways are positioned this publication due to copyright
as “streets”, made to resemble alleys and sidewalks
reasons.
encouraging social interaction, and making the building
work as an urban landscape. Service shafts are running
horizontally in the floor and the structure is separated
from the shell.
6

Different teams oversaw different parts. There were also different designers for each dwelling, in line
with the concept of support and infill in Open building design.
Flexible elements:

• Envelope
• Interior walls
• Unit size and perimeter walls
• Kitchen and bathroom placement
Permanent elements:

• Structure
Meeting the challenges: The challenges that I’ve chosen to focus on in this case is about technical
aspects, user influence and architectural quality. Similar to Patch 22, this case also solved the issue of
customization by placing the services horizontally in the raised floor and hung ceiling. The users are
given a lot of freedom in terms of adapting their units. Not just the interior walls, but also the
perimeter walls are flexible so that the inhabitant can chose the outline of their apartment as well. This
is possible thanks to a standardized wall system. This level of freedom and the exposed load-bearing
structure of course affects the architectural appearance of the building. As the designers have less
influence in this part, the visual result of the architecture is a manifest of flexible and adaptable design
rather than aesthetic preferences.
Long-term performance: Re-modelling of units have been done around 2002 and again around 2010.
According to an evaluation, user satisfaction has been successful. 30, 31 Another report states that the re-
arrangement of outer walls on a unit was costly and time consuming, more so than in conventional
residential buildings. 32 However, after improving the renovation technique in 2003, it was made much
more effective and sustainable in terms of material use. 33

Comparison:
In terms of design, the differences between the cases can be seen when examining the plan drawings.
It seems that the plan geometry changes and becomes more unique and asymmetric as the flexibility
increases. (Fig. 7)
With Next21 it is possible to change the outer walls. With Tila, the units have openings in two
opposite directions and with Patch 22 most of the units only have windows towards one way. This
affects how the dwelling space can be organized, assuming that sufficient daylight is wanted
throughout the dwelling.

30
Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. Experimental Housing Next21. 2.
31
Ibid. 3.
32
Hiroyuki Sasakura. Variable Infill System Rearrangement Experiment For Residence 405 at Osaka Gas
Experimental Housing Next21. 2940.
33
Ibid. 2946.
7

The ability to choose the placement of kitchen and bathroom is possible with Patch 22 and Next21 but
not with Tila. However, how much of a difference does it make considering the technical challenges
that comes with the possibility? With Tila, the size of the kitchen as a room is still a matter of
customization. On the other hand, Patch 22 offers a possibility to question and rethink what is
preferable, for example by placing a bathtub on the balcony as one user did (Fig. 8). This would not be
possible with Tila. On the other hand, the double height space in the Tila units offers a possibility to
arrange the space in different levels, something that is not possible in the two other cases.
All three cases exhibit user satisfaction and a variety of personalized dwelling environments.

This image have been removed in this

publication due to copyright reasons.

8
Conclusion:
Benefits and long-term performance:
Residential Open buildings have the potential to improve the user’s satisfaction with their own
dwelling, the longevity of buildings and the economic viability. However, in order for this kind of
participatory process to be successful, the project must take into consideration different conditions
during the planning phase, construction phase and long-term use.
During the planning- and construction phase, the rules and conditions for the project has to be decided.
What elements should be flexible and in what way? Can the inhabitants make these changes
themselves or do they need a professional? At what frequency should changes be made? Furthermore,
project management and coordination are important factors for the project to be successful. This
includes cooperation between architects, builders and intended users. In the case of Patch 22, the
architect was also the developer, something that can be beneficial for the project to be carried out as
intended.
For the long-term performance, the conditions for future use have to be decided and implemented.
These are mainly; follow up on the project and its inhabitants in the future, aiding and guiding the
users on how to make changes, organizational and communal control of the building or cluster and
maintenance as well as sufficient renovations as in the case with conventional buildings.
Projects with a higher level of flexibility followed by technical innovations are more exposed to usage
and maintenance issues compared to projects with a lower level of flexibility. On the other hand, the
more experimental cases are better suited for making changes and testing new technologies that might
improve the performance, as in the case with Next21.
Reflection and final project:
The aim with the theoretical research was to find answers and aid the decision making in my
architectural project. However, as always with architecture, there is no perfect solution, but a thousand
different solutions. The answer is therefore to make decisions and test one of them, knowing that the
aim is not to solve everything that needs to be solved in future residential architecture, but rather to
present one idea that might work. The architectural project will benefit from the conclusions in this
research and present a radical prototype, a proposal, on how flexible and adaptable architecture can re-
think and re-interpret domestic life.
Bibliography:
Academic:
Stephen H. Kendall, Jonathan Teicher. Residential Open Building. Spon Press, 1999.
N. John Habraken. Uses of Levels. Open House International. 27, 2. 2002.
Robert Kronenburg. Flexible Architecture: The Cultural Impact of Responsive Building. Open House
International 30(2):59-65, 2005
Schneider, Till. Flexible Housing: Opportunities and limits. Architectural Research Quarterly. 9, 2,
2005: 157-166.
Donald P. Grant. Review: Supports: an alternative to mass housing by Nikolaas John Habraken.
Journal of Architectural Research. Vol. 3, No. 2. 1974: 61.
Stephen Kendall. Open Building: An Approach to Sustainable Architecture. Journal of Urban
Technology. 6(3) 1999: 1-16.
Ana Rita Pereira. Innovating Built Heritage: Adapt The Past To The Future. The 2005 World
Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, 27-29 September, 2005, Tokyo: 2898-2903.
L.A. van Ellen, B.N. Bridgens, N. Burford, O. Heidrich. Rhythmic Buildings - a framework for
sustainable adaptable architecture. Building and Environment. 203, 2021
Faiza Nakib. Toward an Adaptable Architecture - Guidelines to integrate Adaptability in the Building.
Building a Better World: CIB World Congress, 2010.
Li Shanshan. Post-Occupancy Investigation of Two Open Building Projects. Open House
International. 2015: 94-100.
Franke, Carolin. Raw Space Housing. MA Thesis, Aalto University, 2004.
Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. Experimental Housing Next21. 2013.
Hiroyuki Sasakura. Variable Infill System Rearrangement Experiment For Residence 405 at Osaka
Gas Experimental Housing Next21. The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, 27-29
September 2005.
Non-academic:
Herman Hertzberger. Diagoon Housing Delft. 2016.
Websites:
FRANTZEN et al architects. Patch 22 High-rise in wood. Sustainability. 2017.
https://patch22.nl/sustainability/
Frans van der Werf. Open Building Design. Molenvliet. http://www.vdwerf.nl/molenvliet.html
Figures and images:

1. Jonas Bäckström
2. “Shearing layers of change” Stewart Brand, 1994.
3. Highrise of Homes theoretical project (1981). Image © SITE
4. https://www.architonic.com/en/project/talli-architecture-and-design-tila-housing/5103963
Kuvio Architectural Photography
5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/matthijs_borghgraef/29139954301
Matthijs Borghgraef
6. https://councilonopenbuilding.org/new-page-1
Photographer unknown
7. Jonas Bäckström
8. https://www.swedishwood.com/publications/wood-magazine/2017-2/tomma-rum-skapar-
flexibilitet/
Luuk Kramer
Re-shaping by Liberating

MA Thesis Project

Jonas Bäckström
Studio 11

School of Architecture
Umeå University
2022
P O I N T OF D E PA RT UR E

The house as a machine

THE O RY
P O I N T OF D E PA RT UR E

The house as a machine

“With very little exaggeration, this

baroque ensemble of domestic gadgets
epitomizes the intestinal complexity of a
gracious living – in other words, this is the
junk that keeps the pad swinging.”

- Reyner Banham

THE O RY
P O I N T OF D E PA RT UR E

Structural expressionism

Centre Pompidou, Paris, 1977 Lloyd’s Building, London, 1986 THE O RY

P O I N T OF D E PA RT UR E

The Open Building

This image of “Shearing layers” have been removed in this publication due to copy-
right reasons.

“Shearing layers”, Frank Duffy / Stewart Brand

Support - infill THE O RY

P O I N T OF D E PA RT UR E

The Open Building

THE O RY
P O I N T OF D E PA RT UR E

The Open Building

This image of “Molvenvliet” have been removed in this publication due to copyright reasons.

Molvenvliet, Papendrecht
Frans van der Werf, 1978
THE O RY
P O I N T OF D E PA RT UR E

RESEARCH QUESTION: How does the Open building

and flexible design perform in
residential architecture?

THE O RY
P O I N T OF D E PA RT UR E

Ideology

• User influence

• Reformulating

• Humans - spaces relation

• Breaking norms in the home

THE O RY
C AS E S T U D I E S | OPEN BUIL DIN G S |

Tila housing block Patch 22 Next21

Finland, 2010 Netherlands, 2014 Japan, 1993

Interior walls: Flexible Flexible Flexible

Envelope: Fixed Fixed Flexible

Kitchen placement: Fixed Flexible Flexible

Bathroom: Fixed Flexible Flexible

Services:
Core: Fixed Fixed Flexible
Units: Fixed Flexible Flexible

E X P E RI M E N T
C AS E S T U D I E S | OPEN BUIL DIN G S |

Tila Housing Block Patch 22 Next21

PL A N :

G E OM E T RY:

N AT U R A L L I G H T:

E X P E RI M E N T
 Fixed units Changeable Separate

P LA N G E O M E TRY CEILING HEIGHT:

Regular Double

Natural light
/ services:
1 side

VERTICAL OPENINGS:

2 sides

1 side

HORIZONTAL OPENINGS:

2 sides E X P E RI M E N T
 Plan Infrastructure Space Structure
SE RV I C E S T R AT EG IES

Structure - services
relation:

C onve n ti o n a l
I n t eg ra t ed

S t ru c tu r a l e x p re s s i o n i s m
E x t e r i or

C ore
Ce n tra l

E X P E RI M E N T
SE RV I C E S T R AT EG IES | CON V ENT I O NAL

I n f r a s tr u c tu re Space S t r uct ure

St r i c t S tr ic t

E X P E RI M E N T
SE RV I C E S T R AT EG IES | EXT ER IOR

I n f r a s tr u c tu re Space S t r uct ure

St r i c t F lexible

E X P E RI M E N T
SE RV I C E S T R AT EG IES | COR E

E X P E RI M E N T
I n f r a s tr u c tu re Space C o re st r uct ure
Fl exi bl e F lexible
PAT C H 2 2

6
5
1. Glulam timber beam
2. Glulam timber column
3. Prestressed concrete slab
4. Slimline steel beam
5. Insulation 4

6. Lewis deck
7. Floor heating 2
8. Floor finish according to owner
9. Vertical shaft for services
3

1
 Free plan Existing

Aim and intention

Architectural project

many possibilities small?

inefficient

Core Integrated
 Free plan Existing

Aim and intention

Architectural project:

Question

many possibilities small?

inefficient

Core Integrated
 Free plan Existing

Aim and intention

Architectural project:

Question

Rethink

many possibilities small?

inefficient

Core Integrated
 Free plan Existing

Aim and intention

Architectural project:

Question

Rethink

Test

many possibilities small?

inefficient

Core Integrated
 Free plan Existing

Aim and intention

Architectural project:

Question

Rethink

Test

Propose
many possibilities small?

inefficient

Core Integrated
Mobility
C AS E S T U DY | FL EXIBIL IT Y |

Housing & City

1988

Abalos, Herreros

E X P E RI M E N T
P ROTOT Y PE

Movable appliances

P RO P O S AL
P ROTOT Y PE

Design

P RO P O S AL
P ROTOT Y PE

Design

P RO P O S AL
P ROTOT Y PE

Detail

P RO P O S AL

1m
Domestic rituals

E X P E RI M E N T
P LA N D E S I G N PROCESS

1. Service strategy 2. Plan geometry

E X P E RI M E N T
P ROTOT Y PE

Natural light:
1 2

E X P E RI M E N T
P ROTOT Y PE

Existing plan: Existing

Conventional

E X P E RI M E N T

small?
P ROTOT Y PE

Free plan:
Exterior structure

E X P E RI M E N T
P ROTOT Y PE

Core
Free plan:
Core

Limited access to services E X P E RI M E N T

P ROTOT Y PE

Structure

E X P E RI M E N T
5m
Measurements

E X P E RI M E N T
P ROTOT Y PE

Structure

P RO P O S AL
5m
P ROTOT Y PE

Structure

P RO P O S AL
P ROTOT Y PE

Structure

P RO P O S AL
P ROTOT Y PE

Structure

P RO P O S AL
P ROTOT Y PE

Structure

P RO P O S AL
P ROTOT Y PE

Result

5m
P RO P O S AL
VAR I ATI O N S

Daily:

Morning

5m
P RO P O S AL
VAR I ATI O N S

Daily:

Day

5m
P RO P O S AL
VAR I ATI O N S

Daily:

Night

5m
P RO P O S AL
VAR I ATI O N S

Activity:

Working

5m
P RO P O S AL
VAR I ATI O N S

Activity:

Spa

5m
P RO P O S AL
VAR I ATI O N S

Activity:

Dinner party

5m
P RO P O S AL
P ROTOT Y PE

P RO P O S AL