Throughout history, residential programmes and especially collective and social housing have been very fruitful fields of research for architecture and very effective tools for the configuration of cities. Each dwelling is a necessary cell within the urban fabric and a structuring unit not only for domestic life but also to determine the success of different interventions through collective space. It is possible to generate a more friendly and livable city if in a design not only the domestic, constructive and functional but also the urban, social and environmental aspects converge with the same effort.
The agents who take part in the design process are not always present in the preliminary urban planning decisions. The cost of the operations generally conditions the result, limiting the potential quality of the project in favour of short term commercial profit.
The typological diversity and integration of different uses in the building, dwellings with additional collective spaces, and the integration of public and private spaces to improve urban-living, could affect the value of homes working against economic agents determined by short-term profitability and outdated and inflexible regulation. In some cultural contexts, this inertia comes together with the inhabitants’ reluctance to dissolve the limits of property and the enjoyment of collective spaces.
Housing must evolve to adapt to the contemporary needs of a more diverse population with more complex structures. For this, it is necessary to promote laboratories in which to experiment, counteracting the dynamics of a sector that generally hinders any type of innovation. There is no progress without risk, so to undertake collective housing in new ways, it is necessary to improve our domestic environment and discover the housing and the city to come.
Research on collective housing already exists; therefore, we should aim for greater audacity in the residential sector and echo the many experimental experiences that are developed at different levels and urban geographies. In this sense, it is appropriate to turn to the experience of an office like MVRDV’s, which in the last thirty years has undertaken each residential project with an unprejudiced vocation and breaking constructive, typological, and urban moulds.
Their visionary residential proposals, such as their 1991 European winning project in Berlin, the Silodam in Amsterdam and the Mirador in Madrid, soon materialised. Nowadays, they carry out projects all over the globe, facing all kinds of economic and social circumstances without losing their drive to pay attention to diversity.
We took advantage of this interview with Jacob van Rijs, one of the three founders and directors of MVRDV, to share and comment on the issues addressed in this new edition of Dearq.
Ignacio Borrego y Juan Manuel Medina (IB+JMM): You have a wide experience of housing in very different social, cultural, and technological contexts. What have you learned from this diversity? Do you adapt your discourse or approach in any way, depending on the context you are working in?
Jacob van Rijs (JvR): In many of our housing projects, we try to find out what level of diversity gives the best match. Diversity is a word with many meanings and realities. Diversity in size, price, shape, material, social group. How to mix and what to mix is always the question.
The social and political context also plays a big role. In the Netherlands, municipalities play a role. Recently the affordability aspects have become a big issue in many cities. Diversity in price could then be a tool to create a better mix and quality. [When] there is less diversity in price and size, more diversity in layout, typology can be used.
(IB+JMM): What role do flexibility and progression in living spaces play? For example, productive, progressive, and collective spaces. You have developed professional and academic hybrid programmes and a home office. How necessary is this approach in housing?
(JvR): Recently, Open Building has become a more popular theme among architects in the Netherlands. Inspired by the godfather Habraken, a new generation is now combining Open Building with durability and sustainability. New housing collectivities (private coops) are also (mostly out of need) becoming a new way to develop a building together. The pressure on the housing market that is now everywhere (but quite intense in the Netherlands right now) makes new solutions possible.
(IB+JMM): Is housing configuration a key element to regulate commuting and remote productivity in large cities?
(JvR): You mean working and living at the same place? It has two sides. Living and working areas can become more mixed and lively. On the other hand, you saw people leave the city as they could be at the office less days a week and accept a longer commute. The standard division between central city and the sleepy suburbs becomes less black and white. Both city and suburb can benefit in a certain way.
(IB+JMM): What do you think of affordability, self-construction, and minimal housing as a regenerator of the social fabric?
(JvR): In many cases, these developments are a result of the problems on the housing market. More experimentation is needed as the housing market is literally stuck and these initiatives can inspire and are needed to create new solutions that could be an agent of change.
(IB+JMM): What do you think of participatory intervention as a method of housing construction?
(JvR): Many nice examples appear. A couple of years ago, the concept of Klus-houses (DIY-houses) was very successful in Rotterdam. You could buy a large house in a bad shape for a low price with the obligation to upgrade and live in it yourself. It was not interesting for developers because of that but resulted in better social cohesion in these projects and the neighborhoods.
(IB+JMM): What are the main housing challenges of their environmental impact?
(JvR): Affordability, how to make sure that increased material and labour costs are not leading to a reduced quality of life because the apartments get too small and/or expensive. It could open up new directions as discussed, but it also requires extra effort from many. And location, location, location… is what real estate agents say… The prices of land are getting too high in many cities. However, when there is nothing available, any location becomes interesting. This means that difficult neighbourhoods are now developing faster than others. Some say that is gentrification, but that is too simple. It has a positive side effect as well, although you have to be aware of the downsides.
(IB+JMM): Thank you, Jacob, for your time and your reflections on flexibility, collectivity, environment, productivity, and people for this special issue of Dearq about housing. Thank you for inspiring with your professional work, which combines a visionary approach to architecture with reality.
