An Adaptable Future,
[A CRITIQUE AND RESPONSE TO AUTHORITARIAN PLANNING OF MASS HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURES IN THE CONTEXT OF ØRESTAD]
I seek to respond to and critique the mainstream methods of authoritarian planning in our built environment, with a particular focus within the realms of Ørestad, Copenhagen. Power, roles and control vary between players involved
in creating architecture typically following a top-down design method (authoritarian planning). Therefore, creating a disconnect between those inhabiting and those creating. The processes that leave residents out of the planning stages in architecture result in spaces that do not adapt to their residents, instead working in repressive effect.
in creating architecture typically following a top-down design method (authoritarian planning). Therefore, creating a disconnect between those inhabiting and those creating. The processes that leave residents out of the planning stages in architecture result in spaces that do not adapt to their residents, instead working in repressive effect.
Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts Tom Arbuckle, Spring Semester '23.
The project found its context within Plot 1.3, Ørestad, Copenhagen. A typical example of new medium density housing within Copenhagen. It is surrounded by "starchitect" projects like that of 8-Tallet and The Mountain by BIG Architects. It was important to focus on example of typical new medium density housing in order for the project to strengthen its findings and use. Plot 1.3 is owned by PFA Boliger and only allows its customers to live within the development.
To begin the project looked at the stakeholders involved, with particular focus on the Residents, Public and Outsiders. Currently, the outsiders control the public exposure of the internal domestic realms, therefore, raising the question; what would these spaces become if each user mentioned had full control of the exposure of the domestic realm. The three study models explore the boundaries of public and private and the use of control and power involved.
The initial models explored how different users involved in the process could differ the spaces if the power was in their court. The most successful of which was the resident house exploring how residents can control their space. Idea's of adaptability, user involvement and ownership were explored next be re-imaging the initial plot 1.3 with a focus on these three qualities.
Following an infill and support method, a structure is imagined that allows the spaces to be insert and adapted paced on the different users needs. Each capsule has its own controllable facade inspired by Residents House.
A series of communal spaces were determined including the meeting room, laundry, bike shop etc. The location of these in the development is to be decided by the residents of the community.
A planning exercise was developed to promote the communal planning of Plot 1.3. The planning exercise takes place on a two by two meter site map at 1:200 scale, with scaled down versions of the frameworks mentioned previously.
Acting as a table cloth, the site map allows the community to consider the neighbors and surroundings within their decision making on the location of infill. The planning exercise is imagined to be done on site within the meeting room so that understanding the context in relation to planning decision can be visualised. Also, allowing the planning to take place outside of the architecture studio it is traditionally done in to create a more equal environment.
