just start listing "problems" in housing (both big and small - and it doesn't matter if you know they are actual problems) and then start listing ways you could try to solve them through architecture.

Aggregating floorplans:
Historical and Contemporary floorplan design drivers in multi-unit housing and development.

This gives the excuse for dozens of beautiful floorplan diagrams from through the ages & across the continents, social commentary on modes of living, economic history of residential development and occupancy, technical constraints of stacking and packing, common failings, cultlural expectations, regulation-driven parameters, social cohesion and communities, redundancy, dis-use misuse abuse, flexibility within, mixed-use around...

Having explored these issues explain either how creativity still exists within these boundaries, or apply your thoughts to a specific site context as per the parameters above and evolve some options as different parameters are introduced.

Then go and work for AHMM

i've lately been interested in architects' colloboration with nonprofits, particularly as relates to issues of homelessness. too often i've seen hostility between the two sides (in india, between architects and ngos associated with the slums; in the us, between architects and nonprofits like habitat). i could see first a precedent study of colloborations that did work; then, a paper or project devising strategies for creating better partnership.

Look into how multi-family can become 'net zero' projects (completely self sustained).

Look into how the design will be impacted, or how you can better create solutions that incorporate solar, geo, saving strategies, etc.

And if you feel really ambitious, figure out how to do it inexpensively.


There is a project we did some marketing for that is net zero and affordable. It's huge, so they had scale on their side, but fascinating nonetheless. Email me if you want more info.


Best thing is, you'll get a great job with that knowledge.

bedzed.

idunno, lig, if its like most architecture schools anything can be turned into a paper if it is sexy and interesting enough.

housing is cool, and the examples above are pretty good, but the best way to go about these kinds of things is to find something that interests you and work from there.

but if you prefer outside inspiration/framework...well, if its to be housing then why not try a competition? there are lots of them out there, and many of them set the guidelines for you too. so all you need to do is dig deeper to make it into a paper worth reading...

i kinda envy you. would be nice to study architecture as design/research project again.

You could also just go down the list of people who present at the Design Corps SFI conferences if you are looking for precedents.

Thanks for the suggestions... I'm strongly leaning towards exploring the various issues with modern-day mass-produced housing (and these days, almost all American housing is mass-produced in some form or another), and proposing a system of prefabricated modular housing components that can be arranged in various configurations and "plugged into" a structural framework that contains all the required infrastructure needs, which could take on the form of a high-rise and/or townhouses.

It would be sort of like how various types of computer hardware from different manufacturers and with different functions (video card, sound card, network card, etc.) all plug into standardized PCI slots on your computer's motherboard. Or, for another illustration, think of a vertical trailer park, but with more sustainable components in an urban setting.

The idea isn't entirely without precedent, but that gives me the opportunity to look at some case studies and do some research into the successes and failures of previous projects, and attempt to improve on those ideas in my own design concept.

Stay tuned....

LiG find out what pisses you off about housing (you mentioned having to co-habit) write it out, body it up, solve the problem.

LiG,

the post where you mention the pre-fab-ability of unitis-ability of housing is one of the examples that I was drawing from in my post above. Early this morning I saw Simon Allford of AHMM talking (at the NLA) about exactly that. They thought they were breaking the mould by designing housing from shipping containers (back in the day), that could be demounted and moved every couple of years. Then he referred to the work of an architect (whose name I forget) from the 30's who was designing steel structures into which units could be slotted and removed to, for example, go to the countryside for the weekend.

The same unitisation and stackability was, in his perspicacious eyes, the root of the debate of multi-unit housing. Not necessarily their demountability, but all of the other constraints met and benefits granted by locking units together, cleverly. He brought in the questions of standardised componentry. While I am no fan of Christopher Alexander, he also raises these questions and offers (trite) solutions.

If you put a good question to Simon I'm sure that he would get back to you. If not, I suspect I know the chap who wrote his presentation.

These questions, of buildability, and cost, cost-in-use, utilisation of space and communal space, are all hooked mainline into the sustainability debate. They might not appear to be at first sight, but if you take Trace's suggestion that only the ambitious would work out how to do this "inexpensively", you miss the game. Nothing is done "expensively". The ones that cost more to build have got to give more back in value. Parameters are what they are. Percentages are what they are. Money is the prize.

Back to AHMM. Their stacking solutions to social housing are varied and magnificent, narrative in their development. Their 20-ish storey skyscraper in Accra shows how cultural expectations change the game too.

Look them up.
Good luck.