How can more people still afford to live – and in a good way – in the city? This project shows one way to do this, from within the market, but in a responsible way. Ștefan Ghenciulescu talked to Oana Radeș and Harm Timmermans from Shift. There came up social trends and money, urban hybrids, real common spaces and the 21st century alcove bed.
Interview: Ștefan Ghenciulescu
Photo: René de Wit, Pim Top
Ștefan Ghenciulescu : “In Domus, you live alone, or as a couple, without being alone.”, you say in your project description. Please tell me a bit of the background. This is a private investment, no? What kind of clients does it address, income-wise? And what makes an investor put money in common spaces that are not sold as such? Is it a market pressure – people just don’t want only nicer and big apartments? A niche?
A historical comment: extensive common spaces used to be a dream (an utopia) of modernism, or, on the contrary, the privilege of luxury living. What can make this work in a pragmatic /responsible way?
*Southern view
*Northern view. Different colors express the diffferent apartment types
Oana Radeș, Harm Timmermans: Domus Houthaven is the first realization of Domus Living, an innovative urban concept, initiated by Shift, Synchroon real estate developers and …,staat creative agency.
The concept responds not only to market pressure, but subsequently to a number of current socio-cultural and demographic trends. Population growth is largely taking place in the cities, with a prevalence of one- and two-person households. Prices of inner-city dwellings are increasing exponentially, with the risk that the inner-city becomes a monoculture: a residential environment solely for the happy few…Earth depletion is resulting in increasing awareness of one’s personal ecological footprint. Sustainability is becoming part of a lifestyle where less and less value is attached to possessions: sharing becomes the new owning. In addition, there is increasing flexibility in living and working environments, prompted by the ever-increasing digitalization, with working from home being given an extra boost by Corona. The far-reaching individualization also has a downside; that of loneliness. Domūs Houthaven addresses all the above trends by combining compact individual living with opportunities for collectivity.
The concept targets the growing group of one- and two-person households that put social contacts and experiences above ownership. Think of starters that come to the city in search of a job and a relationship, divorcees, empty nesters, etc. They trade the car for a car-sharing subscription and use the city as a second living room. Proximity to urban amenities is high on their list of preferences. They are open to different forms of sharing, not only because it is sustainable, but also because it is fun and valuable. For example, because it prevents loneliness.This way of living is definitely not suitable for everyone or for any period of life.
In terms of income, Domus Houthaven caters to the liberalized market segment, but the concept is also viable in the middle segment rent and even social rent, depending on the land value that the city wants to obtain when selling the plot to a developer.
Providing communal spaces is also economically interesting for the developer/investor. The communal facilities are geared towards various forms of everyday use, as an extension of one’s own apartment. For almost each function present in a compact way in the private apartment, there is a generous counterpart in the communal spaces. (For example: the private apartment has a compact kitchen, but there is a communal cooking studio with a professional kitchen if one wants to give a dinner party; the private apartment has no extra sleeping room, but there is a guest room with private bathroom that can be booked if one has guests; there is no study room in the private apartment, but there is a large working area in the communal living room, etc). Because of the relatively large scale of the complex (235 apartments), there are only 1.5m2 communal facilities (excluding the garden and the parking) per apartment which the client has to realize additionally in order to accommodate all these amenities. For the residents it is attractive to share these amenities as they are high quality and give the chance to come in contact with other people and be part of a community.
*Collective spaces diagram
Ș.G.: About the urban concept: How much could you interpret the masterplan? Was the courtyard a given and you could choose how to place the big volumes and voids? Also, is the courtyard publicly accessible or semi-private? Maybe you could comment on the typology – the classical urban form (the block) and the height(20-21th century)
*situation plan
O.R., H.T.: The masterplan prescribed the layout of the perimeter block with courtyard and the maximum height of the volumes. The higher volumes at the northern side act as a sound buffer to protect the rest of the Houthaven development from the harbor noise, while the lower volumes at the southern side ensure adequate sunlight and daylight to both the courtyard and the block’s interior elevations.
*Elevated ground floor (level 1) plan
The masterplan also envisages the perimeter block as a cluster formed by several volumes. We took this as an opportunity to create a differentiated whole in which each volume distinguishes itself not only in terms of façade design but also in terms of typology. To emphasize their specific character, the volumes are visually separated and at the same time physically connected by a common circulation space. Placing the volumes slightly apart from each other creates entrances and corridors with plenty of daylight. Not only do they connect all the dwellings, they also open up a range of communal facilities as well as the communal garden for all residents. On the southern side, a larger gap creates an opening that provides the garden with sunlight and views. To maintain connectedness within the ensemble, the gap is bridged by an aerial bridge on the fifth floor.
*5th level plan
The combination of a classical perimeter block with relatively high building masses and an elevated courtyard (with parking and storages underneath) is a typology more commonly used nowadays in dense urban fabrics. This hybrid urban typology is also very suitable for a concept like Domus that relies on density and collectivity. While the ground floor with public amenities anchors the building in the surrounding neighborhood, the elevated garden clearly belongs to the shared domain of the inhabitants and is integral part of the routing within the complex. Reached from all four entrances directly via a stair, the collective garden forms, together with the collective work- and living room, the social heart of the complex.
*Entrance hall
Ș.G.: I sensed a permanent duality in your project between (interpreted) archetypes and contemporary languages and spaces. For instance, there’s the strong, rationalist grid of the structure and envelope and the happy and quite modernist vibe of the communal and private cores. These modern cores contain an alcove bed, an interpretation of a medieval model. Then again, the facade treatment shows the different apartment types. Could you comment on this balance act?
*Tipologie de apartamente
O.R., H.T.: Yes, there are many dichotomies at play in Domus Houthaven, one of them being the architectural distinction that we felt it was appropriate to emphasize between outside and inside. The outside connects to the domain of the city and that of the harbor, while the inside connects to the community and its inhabitants. The first one is solid, robust and no-nonsense, the second one is homely, intimate and outspoken. And so on…
The name of our office, Shift, refers to a way of working that, in some way, explains the balancing act you are talking about. We see ourselves as modifiers that create new and unexpected forms of order together with what already exists. We prefer shifts over projections, tabula scripta over tabula rasa and evolution over revolution. We operate within what is already present, in terms of physical context, but also in terms of the history of the discipline. The history of architecture is a giant container of precedents (ideas, forms, archetypes, typologies and solutions that have proven successful and relevant) that we like to use, mix and recombine in a rather undogmatic way in order to embrace the complexities of an assignment. This hopefully results in buildings and spaces that are layered and ambiguous, where modernity and tradition are intertwined instead of opposed.
*Apartment typology
Ș.G.: People are already living in the complex. How does it work? How do people use your spaces? Are there big surprises, things you would do differently now?
O.R., H.T.: The project is fully occupied, generally by a young group of urban professionals. The shared spaces, and in particular the common living room, are intensely used. This has, in our view, to do with a few factors. First of all, the space is meant for everyday activities where casual encounters occur. People work, relax, eat and play here all the time, alone and in groups. We did position the laundry room right next to the open kitchen, where coffee is free. This simple programmatic gesture leads to a lot of brief moments of contact between the inhabitants. Secondly, we conceived the common living room as a homely and at the same time multifunctional space. We designed four large free-standing pieces of furniture that function as room dividers. They create different places and allow multiple activities simultaneously without affecting the continuity of the space. Lastly, there is the orgware that plays a crucial role in the use of the shared spaces. A facility manager is there every day to answer questions and pick up tasks and a community manager who lives in the building helps fellow residents to organize activities. There is also a Domus app that makes it easy to find and connect to people in the complex for different types of contact.
*Work-and living room
*Cooking studio
Ș.G.: Will you further develop the concept?
O.R., H.T.: Yes, we are already busy with that. Together with our client we are studying to make future Domus buildings biobased, affordable for several income categories and suitable even for families.
Info & credits:
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Building period: sept 2020-dec 2022
Total uilt area: 21.400m2 groos floor area
Plot dimensions: 56m x 69m
Building height: 17m-32m
Client: Synchroon developers
Architect: Shift architecture urbanism.
Team: Oana Rades, Thijs van Bijsterveldt, Harm Timmermans, Marinda Verschoor, Philip d Klerk, Martina Drys, Elise Osterloo, Paul Voorbergen
Landscape design: Flux landscape architecture
Contractor: Van Wijnen Haarlemmermeer
Contractor Interior: Blom interieurs
Structural engineers: ABT (odesign phase) & Vericon (realization phase)
MEP and acoustic: ABT
Branding identity: …,staat Amsterdam
Various interior pieces: Studio Michael Schoner, Studio Earnestly, Odd Matter
Owner: CBRE Global Investors
Operator:TO BE AT
