Category Archives: Draft 1000w

The Cinematography of Architecture: A Narrative Perspective

Periodical: Post Magazine

Thesis: The architecture design process should manifest the cinematographic techniques used in filmmaking to better understand the spatial qualities of a design and communicate those qualities to the public.

Abstract: Architecture and cinema have been intrinsically connected since the creation of the moving image at the beginning of the 20th century. The moving image has the ability to direct people through spaces, engage their responsiveness and divert their attention – all at the same instance. The process and techniques used to bring a moving image to life and further engage it with a narrative is the practice of filmmaking. Why shouldn’t architecture follow this practice?

The filmmaking procedure is long and tedious. Much like architecture, impeding deadlines, revisions, and critiquing are all a part of the progression to a finished film. It is a product of industry, artistry and technology. The cooperative process between writers, producers, directors and actors is meant to extend to the audience as well, making them a vital part of the collaboration. Cinematographically representing architecture can be used as a way to approach the general public, thus giving architecture a broader audience and inviting them into its own collaboration process.

Architecture is integrally immersive and experimental – yet the conventions in which it is represented have not changed in centuries. While model making is a step forward in representing and communicating spatial ideas, film and animation can generate, develop and communicate these ideas in a way that is as immersive and experimental as the architecture itself, particularly to audiences without backgrounds in architecture.

Traditional portrayals of architecture run the risk of being static and relying too much on the imagination to weave together a coherent design. Drawing is a two-dimensional practice, while architecture engages a third dimension in construction. Film practices go a step further and engross yet another dimension – time.

Screen Shot 2015-05-03 at 6.30.54 PM

image by author

Still in order to experience each of these dimensional aspects, one additional dimension is needed – one that is omniscient and removed from the work and delves in a viewer’s mind. To experience a two-dimensional drawing, one must be viewing it from a third dimension. To experience architecture, one must be progressing in or around it to fully piece it together in his or her head. This concept of memory is what drives the four-dimensional practice of film. Just as a person creates a mental model of a building in one’s mind, a film viewer creates a mental timeline to piece together what he or she has just seen and what they are currently seeing – thus creating a narrative. Understanding and using this supplementary dimension of memory can create a new series of tools for an architect or designer to bring his or her idea to life and engage a larger audience than is currently being done, all through the use of a visual narrative.

While walkthroughs and fly-throughs are becoming increasingly popular in architectural presentations, they actually run the risk of hindering a design. These techniques are used merely as a visualization tool and lack something fundamental – the narrative perspective. Unnatural camera angles, abnormal movements and too smooth of a walkthrough take away from the suspension of disbelief that is important to filmmaking. The concept behind this is to make the viewer forget that they are watching a film. The audience should feel like a part of the story. Often times in ordinary filmmaking, the story arc takes precedent over the world it resides in. Architecture is not the frontrunner. Yet when architecture is moved up to the focus of the film, it supports the narrative much more to make this suspension of disbelief applicable. Audiences become engaged in the world they are submerged in, whether actual or imaginary. What happens when you take this a step further – not just using architecture to aid a narrative, but instead setting it up to be the story. Architecture should be the main actor and a narrative should be created around it in order to fully conceive a critique or design.

Factory Fifteen 4

 image by Factory Fifteen

Very few walkthroughs or fly-throughs that embody thisarchitectural narrative actually exist as of now. Any designer that can actually progress into this field has the ability to become a frontrunner and completely redefine the future of architectural visual representations. Could these frontrunners be Factory Fifteen? This group of recent architecture graduates uses film as a means of expressing critiques of the built environment. The graduates do not follow the framework of traditional architects, but are instead filmmakers who use the medium to explore the social and political impacts of works of architecture.

One of Factory Fifteen’s films, Megalomania, serves as a critique of the fast paced development of many major cities in the world today without the thought of long-term sustainability:

Megalomania perceives the city in total construction. The built environment is explored as a labyrinth of architecture that is either unfinished, incomplete or broken. Megalomania is a response to the state of infrastructure and capital, evolving the appearance of progress into the sublime.” (Gale et al)

video by Factory Fifteen

The film asks numerous questions: how much maintenance do these cities require, what will these rapidly progressing cities look like in twenty or thirty years, and is sacrificing sustainability to advance the timeline of construction truly worth the environmental and social problems that may arise down the road? The film’s director and a founding member of Factory Fifteen, Jonathan Gale, says, “This whole idea that there’s not enough space for people is kind of a myth, the space is just being really badly used. Companies don’t want to move offices, they want a new tower. And they don’t want to move into someone else’s tower, so there’s a lot of empty office space. It’s this greedy, careless attitude” (Gale et al). Megalomania invokes an emotion into the audience by beginning and ending the narrative with a look into a human’s eyes. The entire film takes place from the perspective of this person to make the crumbling city appear completely devastating. Without this human-based architectural narrative, the critique of these hastily emerging cities would certainly be less persuasive.

Another Factory Fifteen film, Speculative Landscapes, takes this storytelling perspective a step further. The film serves as train’s journey through time. Throughout the journey, a girl’s face comes in and out of focus. Her expression seems to reflect upon the landscape that she is experiencing.

video by Factory Fifteen

It begins in the past, showing a world before architecture. It then progresses to the architecture of today, showing a landscape many can relate with. The verticality of a city skyline is stressed. The train journey continues and moves into another landscape – one showing the possibility of the future of architecture. Buildings are seen overlapping and in constant construction. Nothing remains finished. While this incomplete viewpoint may seem degenerating or disheartening to some, it actually is something to be celebrated. Construction is an art to be admired in Factory Fifteen’s work. Jonathan Gale describes this, “…There’s an honesty in parts, we don’t want to see things covered over in plasterboard, we want to see things” (Gale et al). They seem to be praising the aesthetic of having a building’s guts and internal mechanics on display – mirroring the look of buildings like the Lloyd’s Building in London or the Centre Pompidou in Paris. It’s an incredibly effective tool at looking at near futures and alternative present times.

Centre-Beaubourg

Centre George Pompidou, Paris, France; image by Natalie Wall

Paul Nicholls is another filmmaker who uses film as a medium for architectural critique. He directed a film entitled, The Golden Age: Somewhere, to express the possibility of a “downloadable architecture” in the future.

video by Paul Nicholls

The film begins with a city skyline. Among the physical buildings, virtual skyscrapers begin to construct themselves to redefine the silhouette of the metropolis. The film then brings itself into an individual’s home, shifting the camera to be the individual’s personal perspective again reinforcing the use of narrative in architectural representations. The individual then uses a computer to bring a virtual Hyde Park into her own home. Nicholls says, “We are transported to a time where the boundaries between what is real and what is simulated are blurred. We live online and download places to relax, parks and shopping malls. The local becomes the global and the global becomes the local. It is a truly ‘glocolised’ world” (Frearson). This film is further removed from reality than Factory Fifteen’s Megalomania and Speculative Landscapes, yet still encompasses a narrative perspective to look at the “what if” of the future.

Screen Shot 2015-05-03 at 6.36.06 PM

image by author

Architects have been exploring this new way of cinematographically exploring architecture for decades with increasing popularity. How can film influence architecture? Architecture surrounds us (quite literally) at all times, yet it is not groveled over in magazines like fashion, or culturally shared like music. It seems to be held on such a high, artistic pedestal that the masses believe one should be educated in architecture to discuss it. Perhaps moving into a cinematographic approach can allow it to be nonchalantly discussed the way a non-filmmaker discusses a movie he or she recently saw in theaters. It is time for this cinematic approach to design to move up from experimentation. It should now be the standard in order for the masses of humans to share, explore and dissect it.

Featured Image Source: Factory Fifteen

Sources:

Arx, Peter Von. Film + Design: Explaining, Designing with and Applying the Elementary Phenomena and Dimensions of Film in Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983. Print.

Frearson, Amy. “The Golden Age: Somewhere by Paul Nicholls.”Dezeen Magazine. N.p., 09 Mar. 2012. Web. 01 May 2015.

Gales, Jonathan, Kibwe Tavares, and Paul Nicholls. “FACTORY FIFTEEN.”FACTORY FIFTEEN. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

Koeck, Richard. Cine-scapes: Cinematic Spaces in Architecture and Cities. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Schöning, Pascal, Julian Löffler, and Rubens Azevedo. Cinematic Architecture. London: Architectural Association, 2009. Print.

Schöning, Pascal. Manifesto for a Cinematic Architecture. London: AA Publications, 2006. Print.

Tawa, Michael. Agencies of the Frame: Tectonic Strategies in Cinema and Architecture. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Pub., 2010. Print.

Uluoglu, Belk?s, Ayhan Ensici, and Ali Vatansever. Design and Cinema: Form Follows Film. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars, 2006. Print.

Yee, Angela. Depth Perception Architecture and the Cinematic. Ottawa: Library and Archives Canada = Bibliothèque Et Archives Canada, 2007. Print.

Prefabrication and Housing for the Future

 

Thesis

Prefabricated architecture is the next step towards the future of economic, efficient, and plausible housing of the modern day.


Publication Title: Metropolis (Architecture)


Draft

Prefabrication, an ever-growing idea throughout the era of modern architecture, is a vital tool for the development of housing. I believe it is the ingredient (awkward wording) architecture needs to become as economic and efficient as we want it to be. I believe that society has advanced to the point where building a house can no longer be an onsite managed activity, and prefabrication will be the future for this building process.

I personally became interested in this topic when I started looking into a job possibility for a company that builds only prefabricated houses, and advertises it as a high quality yet cheap and green way to build. They are not at all the first to come up with a solution like this, but it got me thinking about the plausibility of it all, and how this process could be implemented to effect how we build everywhere and for everyone. (background info not needed F.G.) 

The home building process has gone through some different methods throughout history. The first being during say in the 18th century, where houses and barns were raised as a community or family event, everyone pitching in and building everything on site. This past century, the method has become much more privatized while still being driven by onsite construction tactics. Decisions are still made on the fly, mistakes are made, and as hard as architects may try, there cannot be reached that level of perfection we would like. (where did you get this info from? in text citation? F.G) 

This perception of perfection is that which society has come to expect, as product development has become so studied and economized. Cars, clothes, toys, food; everything is now produced in the most efficient ways technology will  would (F.G.) allow. This brings me to the question of why the building process cannot be pruned to perfection as well. (statements are more powerful than questions. You could say: As technology is competent of achieving perfection in the stated fields, the building process should partake in this phenomenon of idealization. F.G.)Modern technology has pushed us to this point in so many other fields; I believe that the technology is ready to push architecture into this realm as well, and this needs to be the next method of the house building process. )(repetition F.G.)

Prefabrication does not mean mass produced or standardized, as it is often generally thought of  (Make your statements facts. You could say: Prefabrication, in this context, is defined as ….  F.G.)There is an architectural culture of prefabrication, which separates the “assembly line of houses” from the “assembly line of auto-mobiles.”  (Not clear what you’re trying to say! F.G.) Below are listed some important distinctions:

Prefabricated Housing: where the majority of construction occurs off-site. (includes manufactured, modular, kit, and panelized housing)

Manufactured Housing: widely knows as mobile homes/trailers. Use a single module that is almost completely constructed in the factory, and is then placed on foundation. No pieces put together, purely a factory made product.

Modular Housing: Use two or more modules that are constructed mainly in the factory, with most finish material in place. Placed onto foundation on site, they require some “buttoning-up” to connect modules to each other, as well as some foundation and interior finishing.

Kit Homes: Widely popularized in the early 20th century by Sears and Poebuck and Company. The factory produces all the pieces, but in very small units, to be put together on site. The home is delivered to the site as a bundle of precut parts, fasteners, and finish materials, similar to our modern “ikea” process.

Panelized Housing: The home is delivered as pieces, panels of walls or structural insulated panels, and these prefabricated pieces get installed.  (Not sure what’s the major difference between kit homes and panelized housing. They seem very similar in concept. If there is a pivotal point where contrast is evident, please make it clearer F.G.)

(Did you come up with these categorizations ? or did you find this somewhere? if the latter please use in text citation F.G.)

This idea of prefabrication is not new. It really took off after World War II when a lack of houses built during the war for soldiers returning home was answered with attempts at mass production of housing. Le Corbusier was one of the first to try and streamline the design process of building a house into something similar to the automobile assembly line. He was followed by a multitude of other designers all claiming to have figured out the most economic, materially, waste, and time efficient solution to the large demand of the housing market. (citation? F.G.)

Post WW2 brought the Lustron homes, prefabricated enameled steel marketed for its durability and low maintenance. This promise held true, as the remaining Lustrons today still have the majority of their remaining parts. Despite being well-funded and widely publicized, Lustrons declared bankruptcy in 1950, due to high initial costs and lack of a distribution plan. This housing type is similar to Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion House, Matti Suuronen’s Futuro House, and a number of others, in both the ideology and the failure of the structures – these designs failed to gain any large scale support, and failed in their original goal of being an efficient housing solution. (why italics? F.G.)

How and why do architects and engineers keep pushing the idea of prefabrication then, despite so many failures? And is it possible (let alone probable) to transfer manufacturing technology from industry to architecture? These are the ultimate questions, and the teetering edge that prefabricated architecture sits on. I think Jean Prouve best answers this massive issue: (Merged Paragraphs F.G.)

“But why factory made? 
Because it is no longer about just about making one or more
 small elements of a home to be assembled, but making all the
 elements correspond to those of a machine that is mounted
entirely mechanically, without necessity of producing anything on-site.”

A lot of the previously listed (failed) solutions were part of the “all in one” method. Their failure was significantly due to this, because of transportation issues of a whole “space”, and never having enough wide spread support to bring prices down (re-word F.G.). The public could not all stand united behind one building form, behind one type of architecture. In his 1990’s book “how Buildings Learn,” Stewart Brand argues that buildings work best when they evolve gradually. We do not need finished houses ready to be handed out to people, we need self empowering systems to share design-ability. Total design cannot possibly be mass produced. (why italics? F.G.)

This is the idea behind Wikihouse, an open source online forum for designing and building houses. Building plans can be uploaded, downloaded, redesigned, CNC cut, and then assembled within the length of a day (who does that? people? or architects? not clear F.G.). This type of prefabrication is preassembling ideas and methods, instead of an all in one container. Industrialization has shown us how planned processes breed efficiency, and as an industry, building needs to become more efficient.

Needs Development: (Corbusiers Dom-ino House: pure structure of a basic house, no walls or rooms, just a skeleton. It is the beginning of a process, one completed by the residents. He has abandoned architects claim on total design. The architect becomes the facilitator. This approach means prefabricated design can then evolve, and can gain mass public support.)

In some ways prefabrication has already had success. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a building going up that does not in some way embody prefabrication; doors installed with frames, manufactured fireplaces, and manufactured roof trusses, are some of many implicated strategies.

Many architectural historical records of prefabrication ignore the most successful manufactured home; the mobile home. They are not just successful, but mega-successful. Why have contractors had such success with prefabrication models and architects haven’t? Contractors fulfill the true goal of prefabrication; economic, material, waste, and time efficiency. Architects inherently want/need to add the design, or the creativity to the project. We want to control it. This feeling (Feeling ? F.G.) that separates architects from general contractors is what has stopped architects from being successful with prefabrication in the past (How so? elaborate and provide citation F.G.) .  Architects now have the technology and mindset to become as successful as their contractor counterparts.


Sources

Glancey, Jonathan. “Game Changer: Alastair Parvin.” Metropolis Magazine. Metropolis Magazine, Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Feb. 2015.

Kelly, Peter (04/01/2013). “[From the archives] – Home from the factory”. Blueprint (London. 1983) (0268-4926), (325), p. 88.

Larson, Kent (03/01/2001). “A new epoch: automated design tools for the mass customization of housing”. A+U (0389-9160), (3 (366)), p. 116.

Parvin, Alastair. “Architecture for the People by the People.”Alastair Parvin:. TED Talks, Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Jan. 2015.

Ross, Robert (07/01/2006). “Nothing new under the sun: prefab’s slow rise from affordable housing to sustainable solution”. L.A. architect (0885-7377),  p. 50.

Billings, Mark (04/01/2003). “In praise of kit homes [Elgin, Ill.]”. American bungalow (1055-0674), (37), p. 102.

New Sources:

Environmental Building News. “Prefabricating Green: Building Environmentally Friendly Houses Off Site.” BuildingGreen, Inc. 16.10 (2007): n. pag. BuildingGreen Suite. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.

Fulcher, Merlin. “Is Oxley Woods The Answer To The Housing Crisis?.” Architects’ Journal 238.1 (2013): 16-19. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Hammerer, Reinhold (07/01/2010). “Digital processes and the potential to individualize prefabricated homes.”. Detail (Munchen English ed.) (1614-4600), (4), p. 384.

Pearman, Hugh. “Prefabs Ride Again.” RIBAJ (2014): n. pag.Http://www.ribaj.com. RIBAJ, 1 Mar. 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.

McGuirk, Justin. “”The Perfect Architectural Symbol for an Era Obsessed with Customisation and Participation”” Dezeen Magazine. Dezeen.com, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.

“Lustron Homes, Part 1.” The Old House Web. Ed. Rosemary Thornton. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.


Feature Image: WikiHouse / New Zealand

 

Boston 2024 Olympic Host City

IMAGE CREDIT

Alternet.org

 

PERIODICAL

Architect Magazine

 

THESIS

Boston is capable of providing adequate venues, transportation, and housing for the Olympic competitions and its spectators in a way that will not create architectural burdens for the city. With careful architectural design and master planning, Boston can host the 2024 Olympic Games without the negative effects suffered by other Olympic host cities.

 

SUMMARY

The modern Olympics began in 1896 in Athens. In 1894 Pierre de Coubertin founded the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as the governing body of the Games. The IOC is responsible for choosing the host city every two years alternating between the Summer and Winter Games. The IOC It selects the official candidates from the applicant cities and then evaluates the cities based on their plans for the Olympic Village, transportation, security, accommodations, venues, and environmental impact. The US National Olympic Committee selected Boston as the US bid city for the 2024 Summer Olympics. Host cities are typically chosen about eight years before their respective Games.

The economic and social impact of hosting the Games on the host cities has become a topic of interest in the architecture community as the designers of the Olympic facilities (weirdly worded). Cities bid to host hoping to boost tourism, economy, infrastructure, and transportation but hosting the Games has proven to be detrimental to several cities after the Games are over. The host cities need to emphasize plans for Olympic facilities after the Games. Hosting the Olympic Games is a great honor for its country but many cities have shown the negative effects of hosting. Examples include: Berlin 1936, Sarajevo 1984, Athens 2004, Torino 2006, Beijing 2008, and Sochi 2014. In all of these instances, Olympic venues have become useless burdens on their cities. This is often a result of cities building completely new facilities for the sole purpose of Olympic venues. Some cities have been able to keep facilities in use by simply renovating existing structures, creating temporary structures to be relocated, or carefully planning for its post-Olympic use. Examples include: Rome 1960, Moscow 1980, Lake Placid 1980, Barcelona 1992, and Salt Lake City 2002. Rome’s Olympic Village was converted to an apartment complex. Lake Placid’s facilities are still in use today for Olympic training. Rio 2016’s master plan includes 10 existing, 8 renovated, 9 new permanent, and 7 new temporary competition venues. Boston has the potential to be a future example of how to successfully plan for hosting the Olympics. Boston is capable of providing adequate venues, transportation, and housing for the Olympic competitions and its spectators in a way that will not create architectural burdens for the city.

Boston is home to 5 professional sports teams that play in 3 venues with capacities of 18,000, 37,500, and 68,750 people. In addition, there are 7 semi-professional teams and 110 Division 1 athletic teams from 4 universities within the city. All of these 122 teams utilize practice, training, and game facilities throughout the Boston area. A few venues have been identified as likely venues for the Olympic Games: Harvard’s Field Hockey Stadium, Beacon Park’s Aquatics Complex, Agganis Arena, TD Garden, Boston Common, Widett Circle Stadium, Boston Convention Center, Boston Harbor, Gillette Stadium, and Merrimack River (Globe). The city also hosts its annual Boston Marathon, which draws about 30,000 participations each year. With such a strong athletic culture and many venues throughout the city, Boston would not require a lot of new venues.

Henderson analyzed the work of Eva Kassens-Noor of Michigan State University, who researched the five most recent Summer Olympic cities (Barcelona 1992, Atlanta 1996, Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, London 2012) and the upcoming host city (Rio de Janeiro 2016). Kassens-Noor asserts that local governments need to plan transportation and design for the city’s long-term needs, not just the event’s short-term needs. Kassens-Noor emphasizes the vitality of an adequate individualized transportation plan for the city due to the massive amounts of people (Henderson 2012). US News ranked Boston as the fourth best city for public transportation and WalkScore and Business Insider ranked Boston as third best. Boston’s public transit is the fifth largest in the US serving 1.3 million passengers weekly (MBTA) and consists of a system of subways, trains, buses, and ferries to serve the greater Boston area. Renovations for the transit system are already planned in preparation for potentially hosting the Games. Improving the existing transportation system will benefit the city regardless of whether or not it hosts the Olympics.  (out of your scope)

Housing for Olympic athletes and spectators is a crucial contributor to architectural projects in host cities. There are 13 medium to large colleges in Boston which could serve as Summer Olympic Villages (do not understand, weirdly worded). UMass-Boston is likely to be selected as the Olympic Village (Globe). As a major US city, Boston attracts many tourists throughout the year. In addition to the competing athletes, the Boston Marathon attracts 500,000 spectators each year. With its extensive transit system, spectators can be housed outside of the city and commute in for events.

 

SOURCES

  • Fry, Carole. “And After the Olympics?” Context Volume 123. Issue March 2012: pages 35-36. Print.
  • Globe Staff. “Potential Olympic sites in Boston.” The Boston Globe, 9 January 2015. Web.
  • Henderson, Harold. “After the Olympics.” Chicago: American Planning Association, 2012. Web.
  • Knack, Ruth. “What the Olympics Leave Atlanta.” Chicago: American Planning Association, 1996. Web.
  • Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. “History.” 2015. Web.
  • Olympic Architecture: Beijing 2008. Basel: China Architecture & Building, 2008. Print.
  • “Olympic Park: London 2012”. Tokyo: A&U, 2012. Print.
  • Pinck, Dan. “L.A.’s Olympic Boulevard: Planning Through Design Competition.” Urban LandVolume 48. Issue November 1989: pages 26-27. Print.

Side Effects of Gentrification

Venue: TED Talks

Thesis: Gentrification creates a negative atmosphere amongst the longtime residents of the affected neighborhood and ultimately financially harms their livelihood.

The Merriam Webster defines gentrification as “the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents”. The definition of gentrification alone lends itself to be defined as the destruction of lower class neighborhoods by the affluent population. Raising rent and housing prices as well as rebuilding the neighborhood creates a negative atmosphere amongst the longtime residents. Although bringing in gentrification can mean cleaner and safer streets it becomes difficult for the lower income families to afford the neighborhood. Having a safer environment is definitely a desire but what good is it if those already occupying the space can no longer afford their rent or pay their bills? The criminals are forced out but so is everyone else.

The process of gentrification starts with the introduction of chain stores. Chain stores such as Starbucks, for example, attract gentry into a neighborhood. Property owners take note that the gentrifiers are able to pay higher rents and home prices and results in higher property values that longtime residents cannot afford. Thus the longtime residents are forced to look for affordable housing now that their rent has increased. In addition, those residents are not able to afford places such as Starbucks. The local coffee shop now has to appease the gentry or lose business. Now longtime residents may lose their jobs, businesses and livelihood. Local politicians recognize gentrification in a neighborhood and look to focus on the higher income residents that have the financial income to support those politicians and their campaigns, leaving longtime residents feeling ignored and unwanted by their government.

Continue reading Side Effects of Gentrification

The Micro Boom

Image Source: nARCHITECTS

Periodical: Metropolis

Thesis: Micro Units in dense urban environments can succeed in recognizing the changing dynamics of the modern household composition, and accommodating for the high demand of single-person homes.

Evidence: Since the 1940’s, the number of U.S one-person households has raised 48% (Source: Census). The composition of a household, when compared to 70 years ago, has changed drastically, life expectancy has increased, adults defer starting families, and young adults live with their parents longer. Major cities have seen a constant influx of demand for one-bedroom apartments, creating housing shortages across the globe. In London, 1 in 10 people are on housing waiting lists, and in China, 10 million apartments would have to be built every year until 2030 to fix the current lack of sufficient urban living quarters (Source: Galante).

Micro Housing is not a new idea, but the concept needs to be re-invented and re-branded. The aim is to provide affordable and efficient housing for individuals, or couples that wish to live on their own, in desirable locations that might otherwise be out of their income range. According to a micro units developer, the primary demographic is 20-30 year olds, who earn less than $100,000 a year, and want to live alone (Observer). Picturing any major city in the world, this demographic represents an incredibly large amount of its population. Creating units that cater to this demographic is important not only to solve housing shortages, but also to integrate communities back into previously unattainable parts of the city.

The units vary in size depending on the project, but are typically less than 350 square feet. Micro Units have to have a fully functioning kitchen as well as bathroom. This is what differs Micro Units from other types of single room housing; the units cannot rely on communal kitchens and bathrooms (Urban Land Institute).This is another aspect of micro units that lends itself to the single person user, who wants to have their own space.

54ece5c7e58ece5598000018_new-york-to-complete-first-prefabricated-micro-apartments-this-summer_4-530x41654ece5a9e58ece6e4c000024_new-york-to-complete-first-prefabricated-micro-apartments-this-summer_1

Source: nARCHITECTS

Until recently, micro units were prevented from being built in many cities because of strict zoning codes and restrictions. New York City’s zoning codes did not allow apartments smaller than 400 SF. These restrictions were originally created to end tenement housing in New York City, and were upheld until Mayor Bloomberg announced in 2013 that he would be amending some of the regulations in order to build the cities first micro unit building in Manhattan. Manhattan’s rent prices have been steadily rising for years, in 2013 alone, rising 5.1% to $2,794 for a one-bedroom unit (Bloomberg Business). My Micro NY housing units designed by nARCHITECTS will be located in Kips Bay area of Manhattan. Aiming for completion at the end of 2015, the building consists of modular units fabricated at the Brooklyn Navy Yard (ArchDaily). My Micro NY offers 22 rent restricted units, that will depend on the tenants income, and 33 market rate apartments. The range will be from $939 to $1,873(Bloomberg Business).

Although not built yet, My Micro NY represents a pivotal moment for urban housing in New York City. If considered successful, more permanent amendments to zoning regulations may be made, in order to continue building more housing. However, for a city so large, which prides itself on innovation, there needs to be a more dedicated approach to solving this housing shortage. My Micro NY runs the risk of becoming a singular attempt because of this half-allegiance to the concept.

There are also logistical advantages to building Micro Units. MPF Research did a study tracking occupancy performance for small units (less than 600 square feet), mid-sized units (from 600 to 1,000 square feet) and large units (more than 1,000 square feet). The study found that in general, the small units had a substantially higher occupancy (Multifamily Research Committee). This means that not only are micro units a logical solution to a growing housing shortage for a specific demographic, they are also relevant to the national trend of downsizing. Micro Units also have higher rent premiums per square foot over larger units (Multifamily Research Committee), which is an incentive for developers to build this type of housing.

seattle micro unit Micro Housing in Seattle and people who are for and against it

Image: Mark Peterson/Redux

In contrast to the slow moving adoption of micro dwellings in New York City, Seattle has become an icon for the Micro Unit, with 3,000 Micro units built so far (Politico). Seattle faces the same issues, a continually increasing demand for single person units, as well as a rise in rent prices in the nicest neighborhoods, creating a housing shortage for younger people working more transient jobs. However Seattle’s concerns also have to take into consideration the continual expansion of the city. Seattle is rapidly growing, while New York City is more inflating. So while New York drags its heels in sorting out its current housing shortage, Seattle needs to plan ahead for the future millennials and techies that will soon swarm the city from the new headquarters for Amazon and Google.

The micro units in Seattle have succeeding in doing what they were meant to do, which is provide affordable housing in good areas of the city, for individuals who would prefer to live alone. With a demand so high that the vacancy rate for the various Micro Dwellings is at zero. There has been some backlash from the community, with neighborhood activists angry at the new developments in their neighborhoods. However their arguments are flawed, with property values actually increasing since the micro units.

Micro Housing is able to address modern day concepts such as single person households, Rising rent prices, trends in small unit occupancies, Urban Growth, and housing shortages. These are all common factors that almost every major city has in common, and in which micro housing could be beneficial. These cities need to become proactive in their urban housing strategies.­­

 Citations

Carmiel, Oshrat. “Manhattan to Get First ‘Micro-Unit’ Apartment Building.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Galante, Meredith. “Why Micro Apartments Are The Next Big Trend In City Living.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 06 Nov. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Jacobs, Karrie. “It’s a Small World.” Metropolis. Metropolis Magazine, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Kelleher, Susan. “Seattle’s Micro-housing Boom Offers an Affordable Alternative.” The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company, 04 Mar. 2015. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
“The Macro View on Micro Units.” Urban Land Institute (2013): n. pag. UC Davis. Web.
Solovitch, Sara. “Scrunched in Seattle.” POLITICO Magazine. Politico LLC, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Stamp, Jimmy. “Micro Apartments Are the Future of Urban Living.” Smithsonian. Smithsonian Institute, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
“United States Census Bureau.” Historical Census of Housing Tables -Living Alone. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Velsey, Kim. “Micro Cosmopolitan: The Promise of Tiny Apartments in a City Where Size Is Everything.” Observer. N.p., 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.