The phrases "public housing" or "low-income housing" do not generally conjure thoughts of architectural innovation. [...]
But it doesn't have to be that way, as several recent housing developments in Los Angeles prove. Instead, they pose the question: What if low-income housing was perceived as leading the vanguard of innovative, responsive architecture?
— kcet.org
Related: Michael Maltzan Looks to the Future
29 Comments
Low income housing; the "testing ground" of every ugly idea (see above). Why can't low-income housing ever look like luxury? Is that not "low-income-y" enough for them?
Andrew Davis Tucker/Staff
The Olmstead Homes housing project is one of two locations where residents could be moved
One of the projects in Augusta Georgia.
The projects are the projects are the projects.
I believe the stigma(along with something even more pernicious in this case) of public housing is intentionally rendered in the buildings.
I think it would be a major mistake to use "luxury" as a model. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a space modeled after someones idea of luxury.
I would be very happy to live in a a modest yet well designed building like the Guild House if it were located in the right place. I wouldn't live in a mansion in other places if you paid me to.
why don't you show us how low-income housing can look like luxury?
Poor people aren't worth the expenditure.
Actually star apartments are quite good. It is partially prefab and has a built in running track with other community services and it has a well-developed financing strategy. And that's not all, apartments are designed to encourage community life and designed to ease integration into society from skid row. People here keep saying this is ugly and that is bad on impulse, but hardly look other criteria. Aren't you tired of being self-appointed aestheticians so your little bourgeois taste buds are catered to oblivion?
Never did one but after I retired I did some consult for an out-of-town firm on a $12 million project in the CBD, they did an okay job, better than the pattern, but after it was turned over I had to go back on some ac problems.... went into many units... found all the same.... disaster! After seeing what the residents did to that place in just 60 days brought me to two conclusive words - Why Bother.
If I had to live in the Guild House or Star Apartments I'd feel like I'd been branded with some kind of scarlet letter. Ugly is ugly. Words you will never hear: Public housing by Tadao Ando. I'd rather live in someone's idea of luxury than someone's idea of public housing.
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2015/04/images/slideshow/150403/slideshow.asp
I don't think Michael Maltzan should get a free pass just because he is designing low income. Cmon, let's do better than this. Yes, community, community blah blah blah. Do you really think low income people are without aesthetic quality? Craft of materials, quality of space is what makes enduring architecture.
Was the comments section included to solicit opinions?
Yes, the Star Apartments seem to be a quantum leap for low income housing.
Why is it necessary that they look like that? It doesn't look like the projects?
Lightperson, There are plenty of people who would look at a Tadao Ando building and say that it looks cold and sterile. That image of the Elizabeth street building is not middle-america's idea of luxury.
And there is Stuyvesant Town where you can get a one bedroom apartment for $3500/mo.
pretty sure that's not Stuytown.
the first shot, looks like 14th and 1st, and is Peter Cooper Village in the fore, Stuy in the mid. The interior shot looks like PCV, or a two bedroom in Stuy. in Manhattan, 3500 seems like a deal for a two bedroom. Putting this project in this thread just demonstrates how little architects know about these spaces.
Habitat was designed as affordable housing.
boy in a well,
You are completely wrong.
If you would just go to google maps you would see because its clearly labeled there for you (Stuy.Town is South, Peter Cooper is North) And if you go to the development's website and search 1 bedroom apt, you'll also see exactly where this unit is located (in Stuyvesant Town, unit #ST 510 UNIT 02-C).
The photo seems to be actually taken just north of 20th st and 1st avenue looking south toward the Stuyvesant Town portion of the development. You can see a couple peter cooper buildings on the north side of the intersection (the ones that are not aligned with the grid). So Boy in a well is not completely wrong about that part.
Affordable housing should focus on three things
1. Integration of program into surrounding community so that the program does not suffocate and compartmentalize on to itself. (open for public use)
2. self sustainability, allowing residents to live on low income/ low energy use.
3. and longevity and growth of community.
Allowing for the freedom to live on a minimum budget with a place of positive human growth is what the focus should be, not what the hell it looks like.
Except that aesthetics relate directly to people's enjoyment and appreciation. But priorities are out of balance when aesthetics trumps more critical issues.
I agreed with Aram until "not what the hell it looks like".
At least it's not a shipping container micro housing hellscape.
Space, light, materials, transition, structure, meaning, craft, details. You can't see any of these in renderings but you can tell if the architect sees any of these as important.
The first priority should be teaching people how to live like human beings.
I can not fathom a designer not caring about how something looks. Of course the program and how it addresses the needs of the people served is important.
I think one of the main reasons the general public dislikes modern architecture is that they associate it with public housing.
I said this before, the stigma of public housing is intentionally rendered in the buildings.
I believe this is a mind set of some people in this country that it should be this way. They feel that things like this are a waste of their tax dollars and exact a psychological punishment. They do not want public housing to look too good. For them, it is fundamental and necessary that it look like shit.
What does "look like luxury" look like?
Oh wait here it is:
Lye,
By me dismissing the look of a building I am only making it a point to focus on the priority that is given, which I might imagine we all would agree on. Low income housing.
Lets say low income housing encompasses the idea of a person that fits in the lower class bracket of our society that needs to first and foremost sustain a life and afford a place to live, a home.
How can Architecture and design allow a human being to have a fruitful life on a small budget? How can Architecture and design allow a human being to have enough flexibility that he or she can plan towards living in the middle income bracket of our society.
Before I explain myself, I can see that this conversation revolves around the fundamentals of what peoples ideas are of what's "good design" and we all have biased opinions depending what schools of thought we came out of, our environment that we grew up in and how we interpret architecture and design works. Also what's important in our personal life, whether it be material possession, freedom, etc. It's a personal question and to that I say this conversation is to a point unsolvable.
What I think we can agree on: It's fair to say that we are all talking about the lower class and in the U.S. the average lower class makes a net annual income of $23,050 to $32,500.
The bottom of the lower class is usually a household of a family of four earning between $18,000 and $23,050 Annually.
If as a designer/ architect I can see the flaws and transparences in the systems of low income housing, wouldn't I want to address them and solve the problems? Is that not our responsibility?
I also think that we as Architects automatically fall for aesthetics because we are comfortable with aesthetic and branding our selves through our aesthetics. It's easier to sell our selves with a pipeline of a certain look. I question though who that look caters to? my bank account or a group of people that needs an affordable place to live. Who am I to tell someone what beauty is?
Sure wouldn't the world be a more beautiful place with a bunch of PH-37, "Don Draper apartments by Zaha and 8 Spruce Street by Gehry. For low income housing.
But I imagine if Zaha and Gehry turned around and told the developers/ investors and real estate agents that these high priced buildings, with beautifully expensive building materials were intended to be used as low income house and priced appropriately. They both would be laughed at and told to F off and that they need to get return on their investments.
Let the comments of me using Zaha and Gerhy's Buildings as an example of beauty begin....
Aram, I think you may misunderstand me. Yes, I agree that the programing is very important. I just find it frustrating that such a forward thinking project like the Star Apartments ended up looking the way it does. It seems like such a missed opportunity.
I may be wrong, but I don't think Zaha would be interested in low income housing although Frank Gehry might very well be.
You are not saying that it is only expensive materials that is the difference between good and bad design are you?
Zaha only lists a total of 5 residential projects on her site with I think only 1 built, doubt she would get the nod. Interesting subject….think the way it should be viewed and explained by architects is “while there may be 300 who will live here, there are 300,000 of us who will have to look at it”. (Zaha project in Rio below)
^ That thing looks like a stack of air fresheners or a device to sanitize toilet tanks.
But it does fit in beautifully with the neighboring buildings.
Lye take yourself out of the equation for one second and ask yourself is this a missed opportunity for the lower bracket of our society? Or is this an opportunity for people to live in a positive space that have lived in a negative and constricted space and life thus far.
The missed opportunity of what? The naïve contemplation of what beauty is?
If that is the case, maybe we should all just give up on Architecture and become sculptors. If you want to create beauty for the sake of beauty and walk away without any responsibilities...
Yes, it is a forward thinking project as I have stated.
I believe it was a missed opportunity to redefine low income housing.
Why could not some imagination have been applied to those elevations? Why does it have to look like "close enough for government work"?
Don't you understand how corrosive to the soul it would be for individuals to live there?
I see plenty of (possible) futures in that piece. I don't see anything on the past in LA... which has an interesting history of (once-) affordable rental and apartment housing of an astonishing variety.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.