Aravena's concept of building half the houses and leaving the rest for the families to finish seems to have many benifits, espacially economically. However, the urban landscape looks damaged, incoherent and doesn't make any sense. Do you think this concept should be used more often, since it does give solutions to social housing, even if it harmed the overall landscape?
My answer can’t help to be defined by the I know growing up. In Latin America people will add and adapt their houses until they are maximizing the land. When I designed social housing in Puerto Rico you knew from the get go that as soon as they moved in, the occupants would change the structure, you even provided some basic items for those expansions (like power and water). For example, you knew the car port would become a family room and people would park outside, you knew that in many houses a covered terrace would be added in the back so you placed the living room close by and have sliding doors towards the backyard. If you have a floor and a roof you don’t need much more!
What Aravena did, very cunningly and it is a very interesting idea, is bringing the Latin American idea of a adapting your house to a multi family typology, providing the basics for families to adapt their apartments. It might look damaged or incoherent to you, and I am not saying is the perfect solution, but it’s effective, it improves the life of those that otherwise would not have a roof and it provides a new way of thinking about social housing. I bet the idea will continue to evolve and I myself am excited about its potential.
janainaart
jacobvanloon
origamiaround
jbbartram-illu
