Wohnhaus Schaerer first floor

HaUer’s so-called Maxi architecture was predicated on

flexibility: exterior and interior features like windows

and doors could be dismantled and moved within a steel

framework whose elements were based on a modular

measurement of 120/60cm.

Haller went on to conceive Midi and Mini systems that

were used widely for smaller-scale projects, such as

the Schárer family’s house, which overlooks the HaUer’s

Münsingen factory.

 

Kronsberger Straße

This three-storey apartment building in Berlin provides

the capacity for change through its form of construction,

which allows the expansion and contraction of individual

dwellings within the same structure. The building is

designed on a grid using a reinforced concrete frame. A

central staircase divides the building into two halves, each

of which is unobstructed apart from a few columns and a

service duct. The size of one ‘half and design of the common

hallway with its multiple doors allows each floor to

have two, three or four differently sized apartments. The

architects show a variety of possible layouts, testing their

design for long-term flexibility. The plans indicate the spatial

division into ten units, but the number of apartments

could be as low as six or as high as twelve.

At a later stage, two adjoining units could be merged

into one large unit (with one of the entrance doors blocked

up) or a smaller unit could be enlarged by taking space

off another, though the latter adaptation would depend

on tenancies. The advantages in this form of flexibility lie

not only in its potential to respond to its user’s periodic

changing requirements but also in the long-term adaptability

offered by the dwelling within a changing market

situation.

Plan

Extendible Houses t’Hool Second floor

Van den Broek and Bakema’s project for extendible

houses is an example of intentionally planning for future

expansion, something often overlooked in normal housing

design. On an elongated plot of land, the architects

proposed a narrow house not unlike a nineteenth century

British terraced house. This core house contains a

small front yard; it has a kitchen with direct access to the

back garden, and a combined dining and living room on

the ground floor. The core house in its smallest state also

has a second storey, which houses three rooms: a larger

room to the front and two smaller rooms towards the back

of the house.

This smallest functional unit is designed to be expanded

by pushing out horizontally to the front and back, and vertically

upwards. Towards the front, on the site of the front

yard, an additional room can be built, which might be a

garage, a small shop or a guest room. Towards the back,

the entire rear garden can be transformed into a series

of rooms that are organised around a courtyard — which

almost doubles the useable space on the ground floor.

Finally, planning permission allows for an additional room

to be built on top of the first floor flat roof. Together these

changes allow for the initial house of 85m2 to be transformed

into one of 130m2.

Extendible Houses t’ Hool First floor minimum

Van den Broek and Bakema’s project for extendible

houses is an example of intentionally planning for future

expansion, something often overlooked in normal housing

design. On an elongated plot of land, the architects

proposed a narrow house not unlike a nineteenth century

British terraced house. This core house contains a

small front yard; it has a kitchen with direct access to the

back garden, and a combined dining and living room on

the ground floor. The core house in its smallest state also

has a second storey, which houses three rooms: a larger

room to the front and two smaller rooms towards the back

of the house.

This smallest functional unit is designed to be expanded

by pushing out horizontally to the front and back, and vertically

upwards. Towards the front, on the site of the front

yard, an additional room can be built, which might be a

garage, a small shop or a guest room. Towards the back,

the entire rear garden can be transformed into a series

of rooms that are organised around a courtyard — which

almost doubles the useable space on the ground floor.

Finally, planning permission allows for an additional room

to be built on top of the first floor flat roof. Together these

changes allow for the initial house of 85m2 to be transformed

into one of 130m2.

Extendible Houses ‘t Hool Ground floor maximum

Van den Broek and Bakema’s project for extendible

houses is an example of intentionally planning for future

expansion, something often overlooked in normal housing

design. On an elongated plot of land, the architects

proposed a narrow house not unlike a nineteenth century

British terraced house. This core house contains a

small front yard; it has a kitchen with direct access to the

back garden, and a combined dining and living room on

the ground floor. The core house in its smallest state also

has a second storey, which houses three rooms: a larger

room to the front and two smaller rooms towards the back

of the house.

This smallest functional unit is designed to be expanded

by pushing out horizontally to the front and back, and vertically

upwards. Towards the front, on the site of the front

yard, an additional room can be built, which might be a

garage, a small shop or a guest room. Towards the back,

the entire rear garden can be transformed into a series

of rooms that are organised around a courtyard — which

almost doubles the useable space on the ground floor.

Finally, planning permission allows for an additional room

to be built on top of the first floor flat roof. Together these

changes allow for the initial house of 85m2 to be transformed

into one of 130m2.

Extendible Houses t’Hool Ground floor minimum

Van den Broek and Bakema’s project for extendible

houses is an example of intentionally planning for future

expansion, something often overlooked in normal housing

design. On an elongated plot of land, the architects

proposed a narrow house not unlike a nineteenth century

British terraced house. This core house contains a

small front yard; it has a kitchen with direct access to the

back garden, and a combined dining and living room on

the ground floor. The core house in its smallest state also

has a second storey, which houses three rooms: a larger

room to the front and two smaller rooms towards the back

of the house.

This smallest functional unit is designed to be expanded

by pushing out horizontally to the front and back, and vertically

upwards. Towards the front, on the site of the front

yard, an additional room can be built, which might be a

garage, a small shop or a guest room. Towards the back,

the entire rear garden can be transformed into a series

of rooms that are organised around a courtyard — which

almost doubles the useable space on the ground floor.

Finally, planning permission allows for an additional room

to be built on top of the first floor flat roof. Together these

changes allow for the initial house of 85m2 to be transformed

into one of 130m2.

Grundriss Normalgeschoss

The Adaptable House first floor

The Adaptable House, developed by the British Ministry of

Housing and Local Government (MHLG) in 1962, emphasises

the changeability of the plan as a means for providing

flexibility. The design for the development of this

house was based on findings and recommendations published

in the seminal Parker Morris Report in 1961. Parker

Morris stressed the importance of a building’s adaptability

to future needs. Whilst the consideration of the stages

in a family’s life cycle and their expression in space had

already played an important role in the 1930s (i.e. Vroesenlaan

by Van den Broek), it became a central focus again in

the 1960s and 1970s.

The architects at MHLG illustrated this concept with

a diagram that differentiated between seven stages in a

family’s cycle over a period of fifty years starting with marriage,

the arrival of two children within five years, another

child within the next 5 years, the growing up of all children,

their leaving the house gradually, up until the final

stage from year 35 when the couple is on their own again.

Architecturally, this programme is accommodated in

a two storey L-shaped house with kitchen, dining room /

playspace, WC and one additional room on the ground

floor. The additional room is accessible both from the

entrance hall as well as via a door to the living room and

can be used as a hobbies room, bed-sitting or guest room.

The large living rooms on ground floor can be used for different

functions and activities, and subdivided as necessary.

Depending on the number of occupants in the house

a large space to one side of the staircase on the first floor

can be divided into two rooms.

Plan

Flexible Space first floor

William Wurster”s proposal for The new house 194X’ competition

was initiated by a short manifesto in which he lists

the inherent and fixed problems of residential dwellings:

unalterable areas, arrangements with permanent wall

partitions, and a size that is usually limited to minimum

initial needs and impossible to expand except at considerable

expense. In place of these he proposes a fixed outer

shell — an undivided space of 36 feet by 54 feet la total

area of almost 180m2) which is raised one storey above

ground level, with a long staircase arriving in the centre of

the elongated plan. The principle here is not one of gradual

expansion and addition, but of subdivision. Wurster starts

with an abundance of inexpensive space that can then be

adjusted over time. With this one-floor house Wurster

uses the concept of excess space; space that is as simple

and economical as loft construction and allows everything

from maximum openness to complete division.

Initially, the completely open space would be divided

only by a completely prefabricated kitchen bay, bathroom

and closets. Later on, with children, it could be further

subdivided into a series of smaller separated areas

or rooms through the addition of closet units. These,

Wurster indicates, are factory-fabricated units for space

division and storage. Two standard sizes in two heights

cater for all needs: as clothes closets, as shelves for

books and magazines, as a sideboard, as a storage cupboard

for brooms and ironing equipment and as laundry

unit. As with Corbusier’s Maisons Loucheur, Wurster

offers additional space beneath the house for expansion: a

space that can be the garage, a garden store, a social hall

and /ora utility room.

Plan

Traditional Japanese House Ground floor

This house is representative of the traditional Japanese

house that is organised as a series of interconnected

spaces that can be joined or divided by means of sliding

partition walls. The individual rooms are only separated

by lightweight walls and can never really be fully (acoustically)

isolated. The flexibility that derives from this principle,

is one of indeterminacy. The openness of the plan

as well as the frame construction suggest that functional

and social changes can be dealt with easily — both on a

daily as well as on a periodic or even longer term basis.

Connections between rooms can be opened or closed

through sliding screens, which make it possible to change

the size and the function of a space in a matter of seconds:

two individual rooms can be joined by simply opening

up two large screens so that two small spaces become

one large room that can be used for a specific festivity or

family gathering. The actual flexibility and adaptability of

the house is thereby completely dependent upon the active

participation of the users (as well as a specific type of furniture):

by pulling out futons from a storage cupboard, a

room that was used as a dining or sitting room can be

transformed into a bedroom; the minimal approach to furnishings,

and the relative lack of other clutter, demands a

discipline to achieve flexibility that may be beyond normal

living patterns, but nonetheless the principle remains and

has fascinated generations of architects. Flexibility is also

enabled through a modular approach to design. The size

of the rooms is based on the standard measure of tatami

mats, with rooms made up of a set of these mats. i.e. 6

or 8; these and other building components are thus interchangeable.

Plan

3 room apartment

one room apartment

two room apartment

Sutton Dwellings upper floor family flat

The Sutton Dwellings by Frederick MacManus & Partners

were commissioned by the Sutton Dwellings Housing

Trust (now William Sutton Housing Association) and built

according to Parker Morris standards. The new dwellings

extend an existing 1915 estate, which also belongs to the

Trust.

The client brief required accommodation for singles

(bed sitting room apartments], disabled people (tworoomed

apartments) and families (five-person apartments).

The entire development has forty-eight dwellings

on five storeys, with four staircases serving two units

each on floors one to four; the apartments on the ground

floor are accessed straight from the pedestrian access on

the rear of the block. The ground floor accommodates the

single person apartments; the first, second and third floor

accommodates family apartments; and the top floor contains

the two-person apartments.

The entire programme, from residential and down to

the garages, is accommodated within the same structural

grid within a reinforced concrete frame construction. The

loadbearing elements are contained within the external

skin, with one additional row of columns on the inside of the

building. Apart from these few structural elements, only

the staircase core is fixed in plan. This allows considerable

flexibility in the internal planning, as is shown in the original

drawings that show a variety of layouts within the same

shell. Each of the family apartments hasa condensed central

core that contains a bathroom, separate WC, a number

of storage cabinets and the kitchen. The remaining

space can be divided according to the needs of a particular

occupant.

Sutton Dwellings ground floor single persons

The Sutton Dwellings by Frederick MacManus & Partners

were commissioned by the Sutton Dwellings Housing

Trust (now William Sutton Housing Association) and built

according to Parker Morris standards. The new dwellings

extend an existing 1915 estate, which also belongs to the

Trust.

The client brief required accommodation for singles

(bed sitting room apartments], disabled people (tworoomed

apartments) and families (five-person apartments).

The entire development has forty-eight dwellings

on five storeys, with four staircases serving two units

each on floors one to four; the apartments on the ground

floor are accessed straight from the pedestrian access on

the rear of the block. The ground floor accommodates the

single person apartments; the first, second and third floor

accommodates family apartments; and the top floor contains

the two-person apartments.

The entire programme, from residential and down to

the garages, is accommodated within the same structural

grid within a reinforced concrete frame construction. The

loadbearing elements are contained within the external

skin, with one additional row of columns on the inside of the

building. Apart from these few structural elements, only

the staircase core is fixed in plan. This allows considerable

flexibility in the internal planning, as is shown in the original

drawings that show a variety of layouts within the same

shell. Each of the family apartments hasa condensed central

core that contains a bathroom, separate WC, a number

of storage cabinets and the kitchen. The remaining

space can be divided according to the needs of a particular

occupant.

Single Space House typical floor plan

This project develops the idea of a single space that is surrounded

by the essential minimum of services, with kitchens

and bathrooms pushed to opposite sides of a single

large space. A series of angled sections of wall provide

the connecting point for concertina panels. The various

permutations of the opening and closing of these panels

gives a wide variety of potential spaces and use patterns.

Areas can be connected with each other as well as isolated,

though never acoustically. In the end, the occupation

of the house, whilst suggestive of flexible use, is actually

over-determined by the design. To live in these spaces

with their interconnections and rooms opening off one

another would demand a real commitment to the ¡deals

of flexibility.

Plan

Wohnungseinheit

Schroederhuis First floor night use

Of all the seminal houses of the twentieth century, it is

the Schroder Huis that has most fascinated architects as

an exemplar of flexibility. However, some of this interest

is misplaced, since the house is a highly tuned response

to a very particular set of requirements, and therefore it is

problematic to extrapolate generic principles from it. The

house is organised on two storeys around a central core

that contains the staircase. Whilst the ground floor plan

is subdivided in a conventional way into separate rooms:

kitchen /dining, a reading room, a studio room (plus adjacent

dark room) and a bedroom — the hinged sectional

moveable screens of the first floor allow for the creation of

one single continuous open space.

The design of the Schroder Huis joins the spatial concepts

of De Stijl with Mrs Schroder’s aims to overcome

the socio-spatial hierarchy of the normal house whilst

also maintaining some privacy. As in the traditional Japanese

house, the flexibility of the Schroder Huis relies on

the participation of the user, who is constantly employed

to create enclosure and then dissolve it again. During the

day, the hinged screens are pushed towards the outer

walls of the building and either kept in storage cupboards

or gathered behind short fin walls. When closed again,

the screen in the centre doubles up as a door, so that

each room can be accessed separately from the hall: two

rooms for sleeping and one living /dining room.

Schroeder Huis First floor day use

Of all the seminal houses of the twentieth century, it is

the Schroder Huis that has most fascinated architects as

an exemplar of flexibility. However, some of this interest

is misplaced, since the house is a highly tuned response

to a very particular set of requirements, and therefore it is

problematic to extrapolate generic principles from it. The

house is organised on two storeys around a central core

that contains the staircase. Whilst the ground floor plan

is subdivided in a conventional way into separate rooms:

kitchen /dining, a reading room, a studio room (plus adjacent

dark room) and a bedroom — the hinged sectional

moveable screens of the first floor allow for the creation of

one single continuous open space.

The design of the Schroder Huis joins the spatial concepts

of De Stijl with Mrs Schroder’s aims to overcome

the socio-spatial hierarchy of the normal house whilst

also maintaining some privacy. As in the traditional Japanese

house, the flexibility of the Schroder Huis relies on

the participation of the user, who is constantly employed

to create enclosure and then dissolve it again. During the

day, the hinged screens are pushed towards the outer

walls of the building and either kept in storage cupboards

or gathered behind short fin walls. When closed again,

the screen in the centre doubles up as a door, so that

each room can be accessed separately from the hall: two

rooms for sleeping and one living /dining room.

Next 21 Second floor

The Next 21 project was constructed as an experimental

residential complex in Osaka, Japan, by Osaka Gas Co.,

Ltd. The building was initiated in order to test new models

for reducing energy consumption and preserving the environment

through waste processing (water and refuse) and

greening at the same time as creating apartments that

suit and can adapt to individual residents’ needs and lifestyles.

Whilst most of the dwellings during a first phase of

occupation (April 1994 to March 1999] were proposed by

Osaka Gas, others were designed by the residents themselves.

The project closely follows the principles of the

Open Building movement, and is often used as an example

of the benefits of a support and infill approach.

The building takes account of different needs and time

horizons, both in terms of social occupation but also in

terms of construction, with the latter being differentiated

according to the particular life span of each component.

Building elements are divided into two groups: long-life

elements that provide the communal structure (columns,

beams and floors), and short-life elements in private areas

(partition walls, building services and equipment), which

can be adjusted without disturbing the overall integrity of

the system. This is clearly expressed in the aesthetic of

the building, with a stable and relatively ordered structure

framing a more diverse infill suggestive of change.

Wall components are based on a modular system and

can be placed anywhere on the predetermined grid. The

services form a separate constructional layer. Wiring and

piping for gas, water and electricity are located in raised

floors or suspended ceilings. When parts have to be

exchanged, or when systems have to be renewed, panels

in the ceiling or floor plates allow easy access.

Letohradská

The Letohradská apartment block in Prague employs a

strategy of indeterminate space, providing rooms without

specific designation. In contrast to Bruno Taut’s Hufeisensiedlung,

where the same strategy is applied to mass

housing, Rosenberg used it for inner city luxury apartment

houses with generous space standards.

Each floor, apart the top and ground, has two units:

one 2-room (just over 80m2) and one 3-room apartment

(around 125m2]. The individual rooms within each apartment

can be accessed via a central hall. The larger apartments

have added flexibility of use through additional

doors or sliding walls, between two rooms.

The open column and beam construction allows for

the relatively free distribution of rooms. Partition walls

are non-loadbearing, which leaves the entire area of each

storey indetermined as to their specific use — as can be

seen in the design of the top storey apartment in the same

development. The only limit in the subdivision of the plan

is imposed by the number of connection points to service

ducts and the relatively deep plan of the building.

Letohradská

The Letohradská apartment block in Prague employs a

strategy of indeterminate space, providing rooms without

specific designation. In contrast to Bruno Taut’s Hufeisensiedlung,

where the same strategy is applied to mass

housing, Rosenberg used it for inner city luxury apartment

houses with generous space standards.

Each floor, apart the top and ground, has two units:

one 2-room (just over 80m2) and one 3-room apartment

(around 125m2]. The individual rooms within each apartment

can be accessed via a central hall. The larger apartments

have added flexibility of use through additional

doors or sliding walls, between two rooms.

The open column and beam construction allows for

the relatively free distribution of rooms. Partition walls

are non-loadbearing, which leaves the entire area of each

storey indetermined as to their specific use — as can be

seen in the design of the top storey apartment in the same

development. The only limit in the subdivision of the plan

is imposed by the number of connection points to service

ducts and the relatively deep plan of the building.

Nuovo Portello Site Plan

KraftWerk1 House A Fourth floor

This mixed use development for an inner city site in Zurich,

comprises three buildings of which two are mainly residential

and one is commercial. Around 240 people live in

the development and a further 90 people have their work

place there. One of the initial ideas of the project was to

provide spaces for a group of 15 to 20 people to rent (600m2

over two storeys), which could not only be subdivided and

designed according to their ideas but also self-managed.

These ‘Suiten’ were intended to allow different forms of

communal and co-living through a variety of communal

and private spaces. Although the full extent of these

spaces didn’t materialise, the building blocks feature a

large variety of flat sizes, ranging from 2.5 room flats to

units with up to 13 rooms, from 31m2 to 350m2, from singles

through families to groups of independent people.

The variety in apartment sizes is enabled by a repetitive

constructional system of crosswalls, which can be

knocked through at points. The crosswalls are spaced at

the width of a typical residential room (2.8m and 3.5m),

dimensions that allows an almost infinite arrangement

of layouts. Units are served by a central circulation and

service core, but it is also possible to insert private internal

staircases between crosswalls, to create two- or even

three-storey apartments.

Haus A, an eight-storey block is organised around four

vertical circulation cores, which are connected via a large

corridor on the ground floor as well as interior roads —

rues intérieures — on the third and sixth storey. On the

ground floor are communal uses such as a kindergarten,

a bar, studio spaces and some commercial units, whilst

the upper storeys are residential. Haus B3, the second

residential block, has three- to seven-room apartments,

maisonettes, and studio apartments on four storeys.

Kallebäck Experimental Housing Varied infill

Built at the urban periphery of Goteborg, the Kallebàck

housing development can best be described as a shelving

unit that provides individual sites for single detached

houses. It takes the concept of support structure to its logical

conclusion, stripped down to the provision of the floor

of the shelf, vertical circulation and a few service connections.

Each house is set on a concrete floor plate, and can

have its own facade treatment, floor plan and (surprisingly)

roof. The front of the ‘shelf forms the edge of a balcony

for each house. The design of the house is then based

around a system of demountable partition walls, wall

cupboards and doors, all fixed to the concrete floor plate.

2 people are needed for changing parts: one to hold the

element, another one to fix it.

The initial idea was that the shelves would be filled up

overtime. However, such was the popularity of the scheme

that all the plots were taken from the start and each of the

houses designed more or less to their full extent. Whilst

this might have been against the wishes of the architect,

the scheme still retains a playful sense of a set of mobile

homes perched in the air, exuding a sense of past and

future change. However, some critics have dismissed the

scheme as a one-off oddity with few wider lessons.

Two studies, one after two years of inhabitation, the

other after eleven, found that changes continued to be

made by the inhabitants. The first study found that the

majority of the occupants had chosen to buy into the

project specifically for its potential to change and therefore

had an active commitment to the possibilities of

flexible design.

Eisweihstrasse 2-120

Fronwaldstrasse 94

Reismühlestrasse 11

Jaernbrott Experimental Housing Option 3-bedroom apartment

This experimental housing project was the winner of an

ideas competition for new housing types arranged by the

Gõteborg municipal housing company Bostadsbolaget

in 1950-51. The building has 20 apartments on five storeys:

two apartments of 42m2, eight apartments of 54m2,

five apartments of 68m2 and five apartments of 83m2, all

arranged around two staircase cores.

Tage and Anders William-Olsson’s project has two

main features: an open plan and modular infill. The fixed

elements of the plan were reduced to a bathroom on the

side of the staircase and a kitchen unit along the party

wall. There was then just a single column in the middle of

an otherwise open space. All partitions were made with

a modular system of demountable panels, either 20 or

60cm wide (and 80cm wide elements for doors], with open

joints.

Prospective occupants were shown suggestions for

interior layout, which they could determine before they

moved in. Published plans show the variety of arrangements

for each apartment. The modular partitioning also

enabled tenants to continue to change the layout over

time. A subsequent study showed a wide range of developed

layouts, with living rooms from 18m2 to 37m2 (where

initially they had been 18m2) and other rooms down to a

minimum of 5m2.

The building still stands, but for number of reasons

the demountable walls have been replaced. There were

problems with acoustic transmission between rooms and

with the visible joints, which residents disliked and wallpapered

over. The housing association that managed the

apartments also lost interest in the flexible aspects of the

scheme and ceased the supply of spare parts.

Melchrütistrasse 23-29

Housing Block Erasmuslaan first floor

The houses on Erasmuslaan, Utrecht, simplify some of

the principles that Rietveld first developed in the Schroder

Huis. The plans are based on a one-metre module and a

structural system that allows the free subdivision of the

open space. On the ground floor, space can be adjusted

and subdivided by means of folding concertina walls,

which are guided on floor and ceiling tracks. The upper

storeys are divided more conventionally by partition walls,

whose positions follow the underlying grid, with all rooms

separately accessible off the vertical circulation core.

In each of the four houses, staircase, kitchen and bathroom

are grouped together and are placed to one side of

the space of each living unit. On the ground floor, the walls

enclosing this core are the only fixed elements in plan. The

concertina walls divide or open up the remaining space. If

these wall panels are pushed to one side against the fixed

wall, the openness of the large space (11 metres in length

and between 4 and 7 metres in width] emerges to its full

extent. If pulled out, the panels divide the space into up to

three smaller spaces of 15m2, 20m2 and 24m2 (though it

should be noted that one of these ‘rooms’ does not have

its own access from the central core, thus potentially limiting

its usage).

Unlike Mies van der Rohe’s Weifienhofsiedlung project,

the facade is not interrupted with structural elements,

nor are there any loadbearing columns in the centre of the

space. At Erasmuslaan, the crosswalls are a double skin

of loadbearing brick which support I-beams that span the

width of the each house. In theory, therefore, each of the

internal walls could be placed somewhere else or could

be removed altogether.

This structural principle enables a continuous band of

steel framed windows on the facade. Yet, in order to provide

possible connection points for the establishment of

internal partition walls, slightly wider window profiles are

placed at two-metre intervals.

Hellmutstraße

Bienenstraße

Langhansstraße 27-29

Das Grundstück wird mit einem 5-geschossigen Hofhausgebäude, das von der Roelckestraße zugänglich ist, bebaut. Der Blockrand wird durch den vorgeschlagenen Baukörper vollständig geschlossen. Das Gebäude ist über den West-Ost ausgerichteten, begrünten Hofraum erschlossen, der zudem als Gemeinschafts- und Spielfläche dient. Im Gebäude werden verschiedene Wohnformen (Geschosswohnungen, Maisonetten, Town-Houses) angeboten. Diese sind jeweils mit einem großzügigen, verglasten Balkon, der als „Garten“ beschrieben wird, ausgestattet. Die Dachfläche wird ebenfalls als Gartenfläche konzipiert. Die vorgeschlagene Schottenbauweise erlaubt die Kombination von Räumen ähnlich einem Baukastenprinzip zu unterschiedlichen Wohnungs- bzw. Nutzungstypen. Im Erdgeschoss sind gewerbliche und gemeinschaftliche Nutzungen (Läden, Büros, Ateliers, Kindertagesstätte) vorgesehen.

Upper Strand Granton

Mina del Morro 1

Side by side 2

Side by side 1