6 ms·

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 environmen

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.
    - saeranv 11y ago
      I guess adequate earthquake resistance with deeper foundations and specialized core would be more expensive. However building vertical should be cheaper per unit than a horizontal equivalent. I think the trade-off could optimized...
yourapostasy 11y ago
Look to the Levittown experience for how variation is a naturally emergent property in the right setting; identical houses stamped out assembly-line fashion, yet after a decade they were already adapted to the point it was becoming difficult to discern houses on the same block started out identical to each other. The key was a design that was very open to owner adaptation. Housing affordability is complex issue. While there are local factors like zoning as you mentioned, artificial distortions in the open market for land in the US (and much of the rest of the world) contribute a plurality of the effects causing the stratospheric cost of land wherever well-paying jobs can be found.
- MrTonyD 11y ago
  For every Levittown there are also hundreds of neighborhoods that never got any better after they were built. I would argue that Levittown can't be disentangled from the economic period in the United States - and it reflected the improving economic position of the working class. That ended in the 1970's for the United States (the GDP kept rising but it has gone to the rich. And home ownership is the same percent right now as it was in the mid-1970's.)
  - CullingTheHerd 11y ago
    Going out on a limb, I think yourapostasy pointed to Levittown not to attempt to explain the entire economics of housing for the U.S.A. during the 70's (because hey, if we're taking the issue to that level we have to talk globally about inflation, oil, etc), but rather they were simply suggesting that, given the (in yourapostasy's ,i think correct and understated, words) "complex" issues surrounding affordable housing, Levittown is a helpful example in as far as providing a cookie cutter foundation which lends itself to indiviualisation over the long term, which is actually a more complex concept (much like building mountains or clouds out of simpler fractal shapes) than it first seems.
    - yourapostasy 11y ago
      On point. The complexity of the overall land affordability issue isn't amenable to deconstructing in this forum's format, but yes, individualization is cheaper to accrete over time than build in from the start (especially if the labor input costs to generate the "individual differences" in the initial designs and operational implementations is driven by land costs themselves).
Wingman4l7 11y ago
> the main barrier to housing affordability here is zoning laws that prevent density and enough housing units from being built Exactly. For many desirable cities, the land is the lion's share of the property cost, not the house.

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.
  - saeranv 11y ago
    I guess adequate earthquake resistance with deeper foundations and specialized core would be more expensive. However building vertical should be cheaper per unit than a horizontal equivalent. I think the trade-off could optimized...

yourapostasy 11y ago

Look to the Levittown experience for how variation is a naturally emergent property in the right setting; identical houses stamped out assembly-line fashion, yet after a decade they were already adapted to the point it was becoming difficult to discern houses on the same block started out identical to each other. The key was a design that was very open to owner adaptation. Housing affordability is complex issue. While there are local factors like zoning as you mentioned, artificial distortions in the open market for land in the US (and much of the rest of the world) contribute a plurality of the effects causing the stratospheric cost of land wherever well-paying jobs can be found.

MrTonyD 11y ago
For every Levittown there are also hundreds of neighborhoods that never got any better after they were built. I would argue that Levittown can't be disentangled from the economic period in the United States - and it reflected the improving economic position of the working class. That ended in the 1970's for the United States (the GDP kept rising but it has gone to the rich. And home ownership is the same percent right now as it was in the mid-1970's.)
- CullingTheHerd 11y ago
  Going out on a limb, I think yourapostasy pointed to Levittown not to attempt to explain the entire economics of housing for the U.S.A. during the 70's (because hey, if we're taking the issue to that level we have to talk globally about inflation, oil, etc), but rather they were simply suggesting that, given the (in yourapostasy's ,i think correct and understated, words) "complex" issues surrounding affordable housing, Levittown is a helpful example in as far as providing a cookie cutter foundation which lends itself to indiviualisation over the long term, which is actually a more complex concept (much like building mountains or clouds out of simpler fractal shapes) than it first seems.
  - yourapostasy 11y ago
    On point. The complexity of the overall land affordability issue isn't amenable to deconstructing in this forum's format, but yes, individualization is cheaper to accrete over time than build in from the start (especially if the labor input costs to generate the "individual differences" in the initial designs and operational implementations is driven by land costs themselves).

Wingman4l7 11y ago

> the main barrier to housing affordability here is zoning laws that prevent density and enough housing units from being built Exactly. For many desirable cities, the land is the lion's share of the property cost, not the house.