In the year Alejandro Aravena became the Pritzker Prize winner and curator of the 15th Venice Biennale, it is absolutely impossible to ignore the topic of social housing. The complexity of designing buildings in this category lies in the fact that the authors must, within the strictest budget limits, create housing, albeit small in area, but quite functional, and also possessing an interesting architectural image. However, reports of such projects are usually bravura, although they are usually reported shortly after the building is completed, and rarely come back to them later to check how these structures are “working”.
The Bureau
5468796 Architecture erected the Center Village social housing complex in Winnipeg more than five years ago, at which time it generated a positive reaction in the Canadian media and even won awards. However, since the beginning of 2016, heated discussions about his “success” and responsibility for the “failure” of his architects have been going on in the international press, very reminiscent of how the demolition of the Pruitt Igou residential complex by Minoru Yamasaki in St. Louis Charles Jenks interpreted it as a sign of the complete collapse of modernism, as if the architect is omnipotent or creates in an "airless space", outside the social, economic, and historical context. It took several decades for Jenks' idea of "Pruitt-Igow" to be called into question, but the discussion about the architect's influence on the fate of his project, judging by the Winnipeg story, is still far from over.
Winnipeg is a small city in the heart of Canada, and the appearance of a critical article on local architecture in a major publication could not go unnoticed. The author of Britain's largest newspaper, The Guardian, Raja Moussai, visited Winnipeg in May 2015 to film a documentary on the positive social impact Center Village has on urban environments. In fact, everything turned out differently and, disappointed in what he saw, Mussai wrote
a devastating article, which largely blamed architecture for the dysfunctional present of residents and accused 5468796 Architecture of sacrificing the convenience of the complex for the originality of their project. In response, the local newspaper The Winnipeg Free Press published a defense note for Center Village, and a few days later Archdaily posted a response from 5468796 Architecture architects to an article in The Guardian. In it, the founders of the bureau, Colin Neufeld, Joanna Harm and Sasha Radulovich, refuted Mussai's assumption that “the architects did not complete their homework,” that is, they did not sufficiently study the social, primarily criminal situation in the area of the future complex, which led to unsatisfactory results. The convincing arguments of both sides are perplexing: who is right and who is wrong? Has the architecture of social housing really failed in this case, or is this a biased and superficial judgment of a visitor from faraway Europe who finds himself passing through the city? One can simultaneously agree and disagree with the arguments of the critics and authors of the project.
Initially, it was planned to place six detached houses for six families on the L-shaped plot of land. Then the developers' plans changed, and, as a result, a complex of 6 three-level houses was built, including as many as 25 apartments; the scheme of use has also changed - instead of a cooperative for members with a small income, it has become a housing for social rent. Also, the significantly increased density - from 6 to 25 families - did not benefit him.
The complex consists of modular blocks of 8 x 12 feet (2.4 x 3.6 m) and 14 x 12 feet (4.2 x 3.6 m), combinations of which form residential units of various sizes and layouts: ranging from 2-room apartments (kitchen-living room + one bedroom) with an area of about 35 m2 and ending with 5-room apartments (kitchen-living room + four bedrooms) with an area of 81 m2. Additional photos and drawings of the project can be viewed
here.
In addition to creating affordable yet aesthetically pleasing housing, the architects also saw their goal in revitalizing the environment of a disadvantaged area in Winnipeg and, in addition to attracting attention to design, used a number of architectural techniques aimed at simultaneously developing a sense of security among residents and stimulating their social activity. In particular, the windows and doors of the apartments are oriented to different sides so that residents can follow what is happening on the street, see people entering and leaving, and thus feel protected and in control of the situation. In addition, two types of public spaces were created: a through transit for pedestrians and a private one for residents of the complex - a courtyard, a place for neighbors to communicate and children play. Each apartment has its own entrance from the courtyard side, which made it possible to reduce the size of the building by eliminating internal corridors, as well as to encourage residents to make contacts with each other: leaving the apartment, they had to meet with their neighbors not in narrow and dark corridors, but in a cozy courtyard. The laconic light volumes of the blocks, combined with chaotically scattered windows of different sizes, framed by bright orange frames, create a surprisingly bright and stylish image for social housing. But why then, with all its obvious merits, Center Village became a target for criticism of the author of The Guardian?
The complex is located in Central Park - a central, but very dysfunctional part of Winnipeg. It is one of the poorest and most densely populated urban areas in all of Canada; there is also a severe housing shortage, which is exacerbated by the low incomes of residents who cannot afford a new apartment or even a loan.
The idea of the architects was to inspire the local community with quality design and a well-maintained environment, encouraging and bringing positive change around, rather than hiding an “island of prosperity” behind blank walls and high fences. But in reality, the established, "ossified" environment over time completely absorbed the new complex - it was not architecture that became an instrument of positive shifts, but society became a force that changes architecture in accordance with its habits. The Center Village has become dirty and littered, the windows are boarded up, and the courtyard is a place where typical members of the local community chill out. The architects' optimistic expectations did not come true: the project, remarkable in itself, could not stimulate improvements in the environment, but mimicked it, becoming a natural, but already unattractive part of it.
Panorama of the area in the Google Maps service
Of course, architecture and design can help create a safer environment, reduce the degree of social tension and criminal activity. It is naive, however, to believe that it is possible to solve social problems that have been accumulating for more than one year solely by architectural means. Their root is much deeper - in the minds of people, their habits, upbringing, mentality and behaviors that they consider to be the norm. Yes, in Winnipeg's Central Park architecture could not become a tool that ennobles the environment and inspires changes for the better, but at the same time, it fulfilled its main role: Center Village consists of the necessary number of inexpensive functional apartments, and the quality of the project is more than worthy.
