Social housing is urgently needed in many countries. But how can we provide affordable housing in low-income environments? 3D printing offers a potential solution for housing inequality.

[tcl-gallery id = “1”]

In March 2021, Germany’s first 3D printed house in Beckum is set to be completed. In China, Russia and many other countries, first trial neighbourhoods consisting exclusively of 3D printed houses are starting to mushroom. In Mexico’s federal state of Tabasco, a non-profit organisation has built several complete homes using 3D printing. This works with a combination of cement and advanced additives. The mixture is printed from a huge printer that layers the material. Within days, a whole house can be printed.

“Within days, a whole house can be printed.”

Advantages of 3D printing houses seem convincing: the material is very resistant, withstands even extreme climatic conditions and can be manufactured anywhere in the world. Completion of a 3D printed house is possible faster and at a much lower price than a traditional house. Furthermore, the impact on the environment is much lower when 3D printing a home (up to 50 per cent less CO2 emissions compared to a traditional construction process), since construction is quick, almost silent and less resource-intensive. This reduces costs and waste. But perhaps most importantly, printing homes is hailed by some as a solution to housing inequality.

“Printing homes is hailed by some as a solution to housing inequality.”

The hope and expectation is that modern printers will be able to provide affordable, decent housing in poor communities, help the homeless, and enable rapid responses after environmental disasters. In Tabasco, about 50 families with an income of less than 3 USD a day now live in 3D printed houses that are earthquake-proof. The beneficiaries were able to upgrade from the makeshift huts they resided in before, and now have two bedrooms, a living room, and a bathroom in each house. Is this a real possibility also for larger-scale products? Social housing by definition means affordable housing. It is usually rationed in order to award it only to those with a housing need. Typically, it is state or non-profit organisations that provide social housing.

“Technology cannot solve every problem.”

So far, 3D printed homes have mostly been built by private housing developers. The relatively new technology is not yet accessible to the state or to non-profit organisations with low financial strength, which mostly seems due to lacking funds and experiences in this area. At the same time, the built environment alone is not a solution for the quality or liveability of a city. Even if printing social housing for the masses were technically feasible today, the technology cannot solve every problem. For example, factors such as successful public spaces, eco-friendly and people-friendly mobility, short routes, safety and reduced waste in the urban environment are crucial to improving our cities.

“Manufacturing of 3D houses in the hands of local communities.”

Therefore, a successful integration of 3D printing technologies into social housing efforts requires an innovative and holistic approach. The cooperation between local authorities, non-profit organisations and the potential recipients is key in order to work out how the provision of affordable, stable, eco-friendly and adequate housing solutions could work. Grants for entire neighbourhoods that allocate space for public space design are desirable. An interesting approach is that of the fabricationcity that places the manufacturing of 3D houses in the hands of local communities. This kind of a project was launched in 2011 by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, the MIT Center for Bits and Atoms, the Fab Foundation and the Barcelona City Council. The fabrication city starts off by giving local makers access to fabrication labs, where they learn how to 3D print houses.

“We need to foster acceptance for 3D printing.”

In these “incubators”, future entrepreneurs are trained. In addition to their new skills, they also learn how to design for a neighbourhood and are invited to use participatory processes in order to include other residents in the planning process. Ideally, this results in a truly participatory co-creation of housing. To make the fabrication city a reality, we need to foster acceptance for 3D printing. This requires more analysis of the experience of houses and structures that have already been printed. The ambitious dream of printing social housing also requires community education, funding and planning permissions, integrated plans for upgrading urban environments around the social housing projects, and of course the necessary technology and materials at affordable prices. Until it ispossible to make all of these ingredients available, 3D printed social housing on a large scale will be stuck in the printer queue.

LAURA VON PUTTKAMER is an urban development specialist from Germany. She has a Master’s degree in Global Urban Development and Planning from The University of Manchester and currently lives in Mexico City. She blogs for parcitypatory.org.

/

This opinion piece is from topos 114. Read more from that issue on the topic of fringes.

Reinier de Graaf from OMA was in charge of an issue of the architecture magazine Baumeister. He dealt with the question of who we build for and created an “architecture magazine without architects that speaks to architects”. A discussion evening was held in Rotterdam to accompany the publication of the magazine. Together with Reinier de Graaf, among others a mayor, a designer, an academic and a banker were represented in the panel.

[tttgallery id=”719″]

The 2008 market crash served as a reality check not only for politicians and bankers, but for architects too. The shockwaves sent rippling through the profession were a shot across the bow that made it incredibly clear how closely linked architectural practice had become to the financial market. As a result, the question of the time, since, has been how did we get here? Is the role of the architect merely to design and create market capital, facilitating economic and urban growth in dense metropolitan cities?
As architects face a quiet but pressing crisis of identity, finding themselves increasingly marginalised in the building industry, the value of our services is once again up for debate. With this, the question of who we build for comes up again and again in conversations about the future of practice. These are the questions that OMA’s Reinier de Graaf chose to address in this issue of Baumeister magazine.

Issues relating to architecture and the built environment

The latest issue of Baumeister follows in the form of the Munich-based magazine’s series of annual special editions in which an architect is invited to curate an entire issue. The invited curators choose and co-ordinate every aspect of the magazine. These issues serve as an architectural monograph, in which usually a pointed question is posed. As such, the curators are given the opportunity to present a unique perspective on issues relating to architecture and the built environment; an opportunity, most notably, previously presented to David Adjaye and David Chipperfield Architects.

The issue sets its sights on questions of who benefits from the architect’s work in the 21st century – questioning for whom we build. Reinier decidedly opted to break with the traditionally inward looking nature of architectural discourse. Declaring at the panel discussion held to mark the launch of this issue, at Het Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam, that this is a publication for architects that does not include any architects. An “architecture magazine without architects that speaks to architects”.
This is perhaps not quite the case, with the inclusion of Jan Benthem (Benthem Crouwel Architects) and Reinier himself in the issue. Nevertheless, the focus of the issue, and by extension the discussion itself, is never explicitly of architectural form. Rather the implications and consequences of building in a post-crisis urban landscape, in which affordable housing is a scarce resource.

Dialogue about the state of the city

By Reinier’s own admission, this was an attempt to try and create a dialogue about the state of the city – going beyond the built form and considering the issues that modern society is facing. The panel discussion sampled a few of the people that contributed to this issue – Mayors, designers, academics and bankers were represented in the hefty 6 person panel.

[tttgallery id=”720″ template=”content-slider”]

Moderated by OMA architect Alexandru Retegan and senior OMA architect Tanner Merkeley, the discussion had a distinctly experienced and policy-focused slant. Joining Alexandru was the curator himself Reinier de Graaf; Erion Veliaj, mayor of the Albanian capital Tirana; Jan Benthem, founding partner of Benthem Crouwel Architects; Jeroen van der Veer, Senior advisor at the Amsterdam Federation of Housing Associations and Patrice Derrington, director of the Centre for Urban Real Estate at the Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP).

The sense of a “place”

“When the value of the building rises quicker than the income of people then the rush towards affordability is always inevitable.” – Reinier de Graaf

Throughout the conversation, there were two main themes that the panel kept returning to – the idea of how the sense of a “place” (for lack of a better word) is affected by this current mode of growth, and the alignment of the market and the public sector’s interests in said growth.

In Tirana, a city dealing with rapid urban population growth, Erion’s approach to rooting people through a literal and metaphorical sense of ownership (adopting schools and planting trees etc) offered up a positive outlook on where policy and design could combine forces – all the while helping combat anti-social behaviour passively. This style of urban acupuncture demonstrates an example of an awareness of the social value of buildings and urban interventions that architects seemed to have shied away from in recent years.

“I often joke that the biggest infrastructure project to change in the city is not a boulevard or a big building – we know how to do those. It’s the 10cm between your ears that is the biggest challenge.” – Erion Veliaj

Architects have to face complexity

On the other hand, such an approach to the management of urban growth can only be effective when backed up with a progressive, forward thinking and robust policy framework. In this instance, measures for accountability and public scrutiny were highlighted by Jeroen van der Veer and Patrice Derrington. These systems of accountability, whether they are at the hands of housing associations, architects, local authorities or the developers themselves are only effective when priorities of the market and the public sector are divergent. As pointed out by Reinier, if the local authority is only interested in the value of new development as a commodity, in the same vein as the developer, both parties are working towards the same goal that ultimately renders the market inaccessible.

There is not one solution, because there is not one issue. For architects, the first step would perhaps be to consider how we build, alongside reminding ourselves who we build for.

In Vienna, architect Nerma Linsberger developed the social housing project “Sakura” and got awarded by the American Architecture Prize (AAP) 2016. The facade of the unique residential building reminds of the famous Japanese cherry blossom, after which the project is named. Major goals were the reduction of costs and a social suitability. The apartments are designed in a compact way and are economically optimized.

[tttgallery template=”content-slider”]

Innovative Architecture

On one side a V-shaped courtyard is cut into the building, creating a bright atrium, where the sun can enter the structure. Because of the particular body shape of the building, a large variety of apartment ground plans can be offered. For further adjustments for the renters, the compact apartments can be merged together. Also, rooms can be connected to create larger spaces. Every unit comes with its own loggia with a balcony. To lower the cost of the complex, the number of elevators and staircases was minimized and the sanitation core copes with a short pipe system. The building has an energy efficient design and uses low-maintenance and durable materials, like the wood-aluminium windows with triple isolation, which also protects the residents from the noises of the adjacent busy intersection.

Focus on the Community

Because of the compactness of flats, Sakura offers a wide variety of shareable community spaces, which can be used as communal kitchens or in- and outdoor areas for children to play. The meeting and communication spaces have a varying degree of privacy and allow the residents to interact in different ways. Through the community, the identification of the inhabitants with their social housing complex should be strengthened and prejudice reduced. The social housing project is secured by a 100-year construction law agreement, which ensures low rents for the residents.