4 ms·

Alejandro Aravena's open-source plans for low-cost yet upgradable housing

39 points by saeranv 11y ago

xiaopingguo 11y ago
The article does not mention the cost of these houses which would seem to be the major point of information. I think these developments can market themselves a lot better if they drop the terms "low income"/ "low cost"/"social housing" and adopted something like "young people homes" or "starter homes".
- bubuga 11y ago
  > The article does not mention the cost of these houses which would seem to be the major point of information. I don't know if it's possible to provide an accurate number. Although it's possible to specify material costs, the cost of construction work is mainly driven by labor cost and the organizational capabilities of each contractor. Mexico's government could provide the info on their own contracts, but that wouldn't be very representative of what they could cost in, say, the US, where wages are far higher. > I think these developments can market themselves a lot better if they drop the terms "low income"/ "low cost"/"social housing" and adopted something like "young people homes" or "starter homes". These projects are mainly driven by the need to cut costs right down to the bone, even if this means that the housing projects are, say, far from luxurious. The main reason is that this sort of project is targeted at local and central governments who feel the need to spend a part of their budget in social housing projects, whose main goal is a mix of improving people's housing, eliminate shanty towns, serve as the first stage of an urban renewal project, and even plain old populist propaganda to get them reelected. Therefore, the target market is a set of organizations with deep pockets whose decision is mainly political and is driven by cost-benefit analyses, but ultimately aren't the ones who will actually use the end-result. Therefore, as cost is king, these social housing projects tend to be located in regions whose real estate value is very low, mainly due their sub-par location. As the people who will end up living in these housing projects, due to their low income, essentially don't have any better alternatives than living in a substandard house in a sub-par location (because, given an alternative, they would live elsewhere) then that's exactly the sort of people who will end up living in these homes.
surfmike 11y ago
this seems to create very homogenous neighborhoods. it would be nice if these styles were mixed up a bit. otherwise this would create very depressing environments. this also seems like it wouldn't work inside the US. the main barrier to housing affordability here is zoning laws that prevent density and enough housing units from being built. that said, i think with some modifications (ie create more variation) this is a good way for countries to be proactive about preventing slums.
- saeranv 11y ago
  I think the homogeneity is a big problem. It does not take advantage of the local site to optimise for transit accessibility (through greater vertical density at transit nodes), energy efficiency (optimising for passive energy use through building geometry) and liveability (integration of mixed-use commercial functions for example). The design of these communities is a really cheap but effective way to upgrade the communities along these objectives and it's constrained here by the rigidity of using one housing type.
- brenschluss 11y ago
  Ah, the key point of his design is exactly the opposite -- the architecture creates a scaffolding for user-modified housing, so that the neighborhood appears heterogeneous after some time. The article does a bad job of showcasing only photographs of the projects right after they're built. See the before/after pics in this article: http://www.arcspace.com/features/elemental/quinta-monroy/ http://www.arcspace.com/features/elemental/quinta-monroy/
  - saeranv 11y ago
    This is a good point and I agree that the adaptability component is very effective. But don't you think that at the block to fabric scale (1 ha to 30 ha) the rigidity in vertical density is creating the inefficiencies I listed below?
    - brenschluss 11y ago
      I totally agree about the lack of vertical density, but I think in this case Chile and Mexico's tendency for earthquakes might have a lot to do with it. Plus, it looks like the regions in which the projects are sited are not dense cities, but have similar low-rise 2~3-story buildings.
rdlecler1 11y ago
This reminds me of the low income housing projects set up post-war in New York but less dense. Generally they're a bit of a blight. Might these become blights as well?
- CullingTheHerd 11y ago
  generally,,, idk. i lived in Stuyvesant Town for a time, in Manhattan. it, was not blighted. it was effin amazing and i miss the living there, a lot. a lot, alot. if you didn't earn 150k+ in the city, it was pretty much the best thing going. new york city's post-war housing was not "low income", it was affordable housing. it was meant for working class folks. blight doesn't happen because something was initially meant for use by "low income" folks. blight happens because of neglect or stagnation. the term blight itself: "a plant disease, especially one caused by fungi such as mildews, rusts, and smuts." so to stigmatize "low income" as being "blight" prone is to so badly conflate the issues involved as to verge on ignorance.
ChuckFrank 11y ago
This should be Open Sourced. And adaptable for different site conditions. Otherwise, it's just theoretical.
tryitnow 11y ago
Meh. The big component of cost is land, not structure. And where structures are expensive it's usually due to regulations. But any incremental cost reduction helps, so good for this guy.

39 points by saeranv 11y ago

The article does not mention the cost of these houses which would seem to be the major point of information. I think these developments can market themselves a lot better if they drop the terms "low income"/ "low cost"/"social housing" and adopted something like "young people homes" or "starter homes".

bubuga 11y ago
> The article does not mention the cost of these houses which would seem to be the major point of information. I don't know if it's possible to provide an accurate number. Although it's possible to specify material costs, the cost of construction work is mainly driven by labor cost and the organizational capabilities of each contractor. Mexico's government could provide the info on their own contracts, but that wouldn't be very representative of what they could cost in, say, the US, where wages are far higher. > I think these developments can market themselves a lot better if they drop the terms "low income"/ "low cost"/"social housing" and adopted something like "young people homes" or "starter homes". These projects are mainly driven by the need to cut costs right down to the bone, even if this means that the housing projects are, say, far from luxurious. The main reason is that this sort of project is targeted at local and central governments who feel the need to spend a part of their budget in social housing projects, whose main goal is a mix of improving people's housing, eliminate shanty towns, serve as the first stage of an urban renewal project, and even plain old populist propaganda to get them reelected. Therefore, the target market is a set of organizations with deep pockets whose decision is mainly political and is driven by cost-benefit analyses, but ultimately aren't the ones who will actually use the end-result. Therefore, as cost is king, these social housing projects tend to be located in regions whose real estate value is very low, mainly due their sub-par location. As the people who will end up living in these housing projects, due to their low income, essentially don't have any better alternatives than living in a substandard house in a sub-par location (because, given an alternative, they would live elsewhere) then that's exactly the sort of people who will end up living in these homes.

surfmike 11y ago

this seems to create very homogenous neighborhoods. it would be nice if these styles were mixed up a bit. otherwise this would create very depressing environments. this also seems like it wouldn't work inside the US. the main barrier to housing affordability here is zoning laws that prevent density and enough housing units from being built. that said, i think with some modifications (ie create more variation) this is a good way for countries to be proactive about preventing slums.

saeranv 11y ago
I think the homogeneity is a big problem. It does not take advantage of the local site to optimise for transit accessibility (through greater vertical density at transit nodes), energy efficiency (optimising for passive energy use through building geometry) and liveability (integration of mixed-use commercial functions for example). The design of these communities is a really cheap but effective way to upgrade the communities along these objectives and it's constrained here by the rigidity of using one housing type.
brenschluss 11y ago
Ah, the key point of his design is exactly the opposite -- the architecture creates a scaffolding for user-modified housing, so that the neighborhood appears heterogeneous after some time. The article does a bad job of showcasing only photographs of the projects right after they're built. See the before/after pics in this article: http://www.arcspace.com/features/elemental/quinta-monroy/ http://www.arcspace.com/features/elemental/quinta-monroy/
- saeranv 11y ago
  This is a good point and I agree that the adaptability component is very effective. But don't you think that at the block to fabric scale (1 ha to 30 ha) the rigidity in vertical density is creating the inefficiencies I listed below?
  - brenschluss 11y ago
    I totally agree about the lack of vertical density, but I think in this case Chile and Mexico's tendency for earthquakes might have a lot to do with it. Plus, it looks like the regions in which the projects are sited are not dense cities, but have similar low-rise 2~3-story buildings.

rdlecler1 11y ago

This reminds me of the low income housing projects set up post-war in New York but less dense. Generally they're a bit of a blight. Might these become blights as well?

CullingTheHerd 11y ago
generally,,, idk. i lived in Stuyvesant Town for a time, in Manhattan. it, was not blighted. it was effin amazing and i miss the living there, a lot. a lot, alot. if you didn't earn 150k+ in the city, it was pretty much the best thing going. new york city's post-war housing was not "low income", it was affordable housing. it was meant for working class folks. blight doesn't happen because something was initially meant for use by "low income" folks. blight happens because of neglect or stagnation. the term blight itself: "a plant disease, especially one caused by fungi such as mildews, rusts, and smuts." so to stigmatize "low income" as being "blight" prone is to so badly conflate the issues involved as to verge on ignorance.

ChuckFrank 11y ago

This should be Open Sourced. And adaptable for different site conditions. Otherwise, it's just theoretical.

tryitnow 11y ago

Meh. The big component of cost is land, not structure. And where structures are expensive it's usually due to regulations. But any incremental cost reduction helps, so good for this guy.