Bring Back Building!
From the 1970s Denmark saw an explosion in communal living. Known as bofællesskaber, they began to crop-up across the country as an alternative to the “nuclear” way of life. A movement already well established at the time, residents would build their own houses, with the help of architects and tradespeople. The growth of bofællesskaber was supported financially and legislatively by the kommunes, but over time as these incentives began to wane, so did the rapid growth of bofællesskaber across the country. Despite this, these communities continue to thrive and grow today. To maintain the accessible nature of bofællesskaber, modern more affordable types of housing and modular building techniques need to be adopted, while preserving a great deal of community involvement and self-build.
This is where the Microhouse comes in...
"click!"
Formation is the key ingredient!
Fromm, D., 1991.
Sustainable communities are established well before pen is put to paper. Communities are established around a common goal that is to eventually live together. To sustain momentum, it is important that the community has a clear set of goals that they can achieve within a realistic timeframe. This can be achieved by holding meetings and making decisions with the aim of reaching consensus. An architect can facilitate the creation of the bofællesskab by facilitating design meetings and helping the community reach consensus. Once there, work is underway to create micro co-housing.
Shared activities are the catalyst for community growth and development. Andelssamfundet has an existing community farm where residents share responsibility its management. The produce can make the community almost self-sufficient for periods throughout the year, while any surplus can be sold to make a profit. Another important activity that the residents could be involved in is workshops and education which will allow them to build their own microhouses. Shared activities prepare the community for living together as well strengthen the relationships between the members.
How to create a sense of community?
Off-grid doesn’t necessarily mean isolated. A bofællesskab creates an ideal setting for living in a microhouse as the limited internal space encourages the user to look outwards. Microhouses within a small community can share facilities sewage and waste-water management. Facilities you might not use everyday such as laundry catering facilities for communal dining can be provided by the Fælleshus (community house). In a sense, the community becomes a large open-air apartment. In fact, this is a more sustainable approach as sharing reduces the number of resources being used. The small size of microhouses frees up living space for more people, increasing density, while releasing land for natural areas, lowering the community’s impact on the environment and grouping shared facilities within a compact area.
The social benefits of shared facilities allow people the opportunity to meet and interact in meaningful ways. For example, managing the farm is a key binding force for the community. It is a shared responsibility where all can be involved to various degrees with the community benefitting from being becoming self-sufficient and offering the opportunity to sell-off any surplus. Architecturally, the scheme encourages social interactions through the single thoroughfare that connects of all the microhouses, where residents can walk past each other’s houses and bump into one another. The microhouses are grouped in pairs, each with a visual connection via a large sliding window that looks across a shared terrace. This space could be used for various activities from dining to gardening.
A microhouse’s small size and modular construction is ideal for a self-build project. Based on the resident’s skills and availability, the roles can be split in two between themselves and the contractor. The modules can be assembled safely by the residents in a warehouse off-site, using instructions provided by the architect and constructor. The next stage uses heavy machinery and must be undertaken by professionals. The completed module can then be transported to site (in two parts due to HGV size restrictions) and laid onto screw foundations. An effective co-build project will teach the residents new skills, develop the sense of community, and by completing tasks themselves (known as sweat equity) make the project affordable for the resident.
Collaborative building process
How do we ensure collaborative design and build processes but maintain high quality, safe and effective construction?
Two approaches: firstly, the Segal Method and secondly, designing with disassembly in mind, to create a robust standardised modular design, focused on buildability and sustainability. The modules have a regular frame layout, which reduces the waste from off-cuts and allows the resident to build their homes with ease. Therefore, we can see the building as a logical series of layers that can be easily accessed without disrupting other building elements. Therefore, the building is easy to construct, enabling the community to effectively participate in the creation of their homes.
Reaching consensus can result in the community understanding what their ambitions are but also what skills they have at hand. To enable residents to build their own homes, the architect will design a robust framework and prescribe construction details that allows for the flexibility necessary for a collaborative design. This won’t hinder the community’s ability to build their own homes, but rather utilises the expertise of the architect and constructor during the design process, better enabling the resident to complete the project in a realistic timeframe.
"click!"
"click!"
Living in a Microhouse community
The microhouse should be seen as just one part of the residents’ dwellings, the communal facilities across the site form the rest. The project presents the opportunities created by building on a microscale to allow for greater participation, by the resident in designing and building their own homes to create and sustain a community. The result is a robust model where the community can be involved collaboratively in the design and build processes. It is a collaborative model where the resident has greater input and opportunity to learn and share knowledge and skills. The hypothetical nature of the project could produce varying results in practice, but through a process of decision making and considered design one would expect a cohesive and interesting piece of architecture that reflects the values of the community and building practices that have created it.
