http://www.amilcarferreira.com/europan12.html

URBAN STRATEGY

Paris, a city assembled on considerable changes throughout time, keeps its identity marked by a dense and low rise image. The central void spaces in big avenues promote the local economy, with temporary markets, big parks and recreational areas stimulating social interaction and outdoor activities such as the typical picnics in the city. Victim of its own success, Paris becomes one of the main centres of both immigration and migration. The overcrowding of spaces becomes a social problem, the real estate speculation reduces drastically the construction quality and using spaces unfit for habitation becomes a frequent reality for those coming to settle temporarily in the city. In a city that suffocates in its own borders extending the city limits in search of a little bit of “air” creates conflict areas which arise from an urban strategy. Areas like the one under analysis, despite being well integrated in the urban transport network and having an economical potential, thanks to historical markets such as the “Marché aux puces” or “Poissonière”, are still points of conflict where the urban structure is broken and where big, mischaracterised spaces appear.

PROPOSAL

The city needs to re-create itself, not losing its image but reinterpreting the same elements so as to respond to the Parisians’ current and future needs. Hence our proposal is focused on two major concepts: multipurpose spaces that combine recreational areas and markets; and a neighbourhood typology inspired on the traditional industrial Parisian construction in order to achieve density and flexibility. We create a parallel line to the periphery subdivided into 3 horizontal layers: a sector of community support services marked by spaces and buildings of exceptional image; a green multipurpose path with extensions allowing it to penetrate deeper into the city and filling the urban interstices (such as the RATP area); and a last residential layer creating density and a façade for the city streets.

CITY BLOCK

Like the Haussmannian city block, we hereby propose a flexible solution which can adapt to the spot’s irregularities, vertically optimising the ground and where the façade line facing the street should obey to rigid, standard geometry. Therefore the block is not treated as an isolated object, but as an architectonic element that, through the proportions amongst its several components, promotes harmony within the urban scale, helping its dense grid to remain cohesive. The urban set, composed of blocks crossed by parallel and perpendicular pathways with pedestrian circulation (privileged by the access to public transportation in the area), articulates several functions. It arises as if it were another street, made of an interior route connecting residential areas to collective spaces and services. This mixture and interrelation of uses is also promoted at ground level where the polyfunctionality of spaces and structures is a fundamental element to urban vitality. Among gathering, leisure, contemplation places promoted by green areas, and recreational, activities spaces, provided by the structures distributed along the main axis of circulation, the feeling of community and safety is privileged.

VERSATILITY

Responding to society’s increasingly nomadic lifestyle, the target audience would mainly be the bulk of immigration that comes to Paris on a daily basis. Generally, young people searching for temporary housing able to shelter their fundamental needs and liable to be repeated in several contexts. The new reality demands flexible and versatile answers. Flexibility of function, in the sense that spaces are not tied to a specific activity, and of versatility over time, accompanying its residents’ life evolution.

Thus, we propose a new apartment model where the resident can set up his own space according to his needs. Our proposal is then based on individual “cells” facing both orientations, organised in 3 strips along the lot. The two strips of peripheral space are meant for long-lasting activities (sleeping, eating, living, working, etc) and are served by technical cores and service areas (kitchens, toilets and cabinets) located in the inner strip. These might not be linked to any of the long-lasting activities’ spaces, having direct access to the spaces of common distribution. Hence, the difference between the cabins composing the lots is not their planimetric configuration, but their number of cells. Each user acquires the unit or number of units which will allow different alternatives of use. The maximum of flexibility is provided in the minimum possible space.