Daniil Lorenz, Natalia Sidorova, Konstantin Khodnev
Typical, standardized vs housing standards
At first, we took the topic in protest. From the point of view of the architect, typical housing is by definition a bad thing, because it takes away his bread, takes the architect out of the brackets of the giant design segment for the construction market. In general, we believe that there should not be a typical construction - not only on the basis of our own, shop-floor professional considerations, but also because all regions and all contexts are very different, in addition, the typology and its requirements are rapidly changing. Ideally, each project should be individual and suitable for its place.
We would really not like to think that the goal of the competition is to get N projects in order to build new DSKs, one of which will release conditional "houses from DNA", in a word, endlessly replicate someone else's winning solutions. That would be pretty awful. However, it is also impossible, now the state is arranged differently. Yes, and the jury said when summing up the results of the first round that it was necessary to work with the context, with the situation, although it must be admitted that this sounded somewhat strange when applied to “standardized” housing. So we discussed and decided for quite a long time whether to participate or not, and what our task should be.
The word standard is multifaceted. Often, standardized building is associated with a typical one, bears a negative character, especially when building on a large scale, but there is also such a thing as living standards and the quality of residential construction. We thought about the standards, approaches and principles of the most adaptive model of comfortable mass housing. Strelka is now working on housing construction standards, it is possible that for the organizer the competition was an attempt to test the resulting model, to try it out in a certain design reality; understand the depth of the problem. For us, the work was interesting in this very sense.
Therefore, the competition project for us is a manifesto, a demonstration of how mass development can be solved, and in essence - normal housing. It was interesting to create a project that we like ourselves, with a comfortable and varied space.
Average number of storeys
The mid-rise model seemed to us the best of the proposed, "golden mean", we really liked the density parameters and height restrictions of 5-7 floors set there, they are close to optimal and even capable of creating a comfortable environment by themselves - the external and internal space is obtained of this quality that the question of facades ceases to be decisive. Facades, of course, are always important, but they cease to be the main ones, the environment does not rest on a unique form or material. In addition, in the mid-rise version, the territory was larger, which made it possible to consider the project in a town-planning manner.
Now the Moscow region is stretching up both in the center and not in the outskirts - there is no need to explain the shortcomings of high-density development in those places where it is not justified. There, a monstrous density destroys the environment, and, ultimately, people. Of course, we are still interested in dealing with piece objects, but it is no longer possible to close our eyes to what is happening around with the mass development - this is partly why we also decided to work on this competition.
Responsive quarter
Diversity is one of the main, in our opinion, indispensable qualities of the living environment. We proposed the most flexible set of approaches and rules for the integrated organization of the environment, modular and internally interconnected from the apartment to the principles of organizing the urban environment. We offered an apartment module with a cell of 6.6 x 6.6 m, a system of supports and risers with adjacent "wet" zones - it allows you to make a very diverse apartmentography, choosing it and changing it depending on the conditions and requirements, on one and the same the same frame. We proposed a facade module with a minimum width of two windows, and window modules - all this can be varied, large blocks can be made, or, conversely, you can give preference to small cuts, consonant with the historical city. Actually, we took the principles of building a historical city as a basis.
An important principle for us is the "sinking" of the facades, indents from the red line: part of the facade line goes along the red line, then makes a ledge in depth. That will allow arranging front gardens in front of the entrances and plastically diversifying the building front. Single-storey lintels between houses - for shops and restaurants. Firstly, our people do not like to live above shops and restaurants, but this is not the main thing, it is more important that this way we got more corner apartments and got visual shots, gaps that open the inner spaces and allow you to look into the distance. Microdistrict development has taught people that houses are rarely, free, and this must be preserved. Of course, it is equally important to separate private and outdoor space.
We have proposed a hierarchy of courtyard spaces and functions. In the middle we have a square and a community center (it was not in the assignment, in addition to housing there was only a kindergarten), which serves as a "gateway" to a mini-boulevard and a "large" courtyard with developed children's and sports grounds. On the other side of the block there are two private "small" courtyards, in which all the elements are small. They can be private, closed, or, conversely, open to residents of neighboring houses - depending on the circumstances. Cafes are provided in the center of the quarter, near the public center, and on the outer contour, where the city square is arranged indented from the red line - all these are necessary elements, and in our proposal we have brought them together, but the main thing is that the solutions, being based on our module, can and should be adaptive and varied.
This can be compared to clothes: they are very different, including in price, but everything is done for people, it has sleeves, buttons, pockets - with this set, it is all similar, but all people are different and everyone is dressed differently. We aimed to create a housing kit that could be varied within parameters, resulting in very different solutions, appropriate in different conditions. Somewhere to make a colorful and free layout, and somewhere in Peterhof it would be possible, for example, to make a symmetrical quarter, and facades, consonant with the surroundings.
But the main thing is that the more opportunities for adaptation, the more viable the proposal. We have offered modules with many options.
Microdevelopment
Ideally, a block similar to the one we proposed in our project should not be built within the framework of a giant development, but by several developers, small plots. Infrastructure - kindergartens, schools, clinics, can be built by the city, then including its cost in the price of plots.
This idea, of course, remained behind the scenes, such solutions were not included in the task, but we believe that it would be an ideal option that would provide diversity - microdevelopment.
Materials (edit)
The construct can be anything. In this case, we based the calculations on our own real projects, based on the frame-monolithic structure. You can use the factory prefab frame and fill it with blocks, you can also produce facade panels at the factory - now technologies allow you to reconfigure the rulers quite often, if there is a corresponding request and order, all this is quite real. On the other hand, where factories and railways are far away, it is easier and cheaper to build by hand on a monolithic frame. Our parameters can also be applied to timber structures when possible. The concept is flexible, it can adapt to different technologies and to the requirements of the time too.
Available / Bulk / Normal
There is no need to say “affordable”, and even more so “economical” - this is mass housing, it should be affordable by definition, but this is not an architectural problem, but a socio-economic one. People should be able to earn money for decent housing and buy it, and then the problem of affordability will not exist at all. If we put only the infinite reduction in price at the forefront, then we will come to the barracks, they are very cheap and accessible, why not!
We're talking about mass housing. It cannot be expensive, it is not expensive in any country, but it also does not fall below a certain cost, because there are certain quality standards. Actually, these are the standards by which normal mass housing should be built. It shouldn't be too bright, but it should be varied. Then the medium can be diluted with some unique inclusions.
Solutions that are economical in subsequent operation
They are very important and few people are thinking about it now: the scanty savings on the construction site can lead to the fact that in a few years you will have to sort out the whole house, change the facades, communications, collect money from residents for major repairs. It's not only about energy efficiency and electricity savings, although they are also important, prices for housing and communal services are growing and soon the opportunity for people to pay less for energy will become one of the criteria for choosing housing. It is important that the new standard draws attention to the future life of the built house, to the optimality and sustainability of the solutions laid down.
For example, in addition to a sound planning structure, we have provided for fairly simple facade solutions so as not to increase risks if something goes wrong with poor construction quality.
What did the work with the competition project give
The joy of being chosen into the top twenty, of course! But also a better understanding of problems, principles, algorithms - those things to which you should pay attention. The ability to structure the accumulated knowledge and turn it into a system, to define important criteria. In general - to conduct an experiment that is impossible in a real project.
Are we implementing the project in Russian conditions
Fully realizable in the presence of certain stimulating conditions, possibly in a more successful and active economic situation; and if there are relevant regulations, too.
Of course, looking at the existing "traditions" of mass development, it is difficult to imagine that the situation can radically change. But if you clearly demonstrate to people the advantages of new solutions, then they will want to live like this and it is possible that such a development is quite capable of becoming not a unique event, but the norm, as it should be.
