“Each generation, each occupant, changed what he found. That is why in restorations more than one ceiling is found, or why paneling hides earlier, often more beautiful, wall decorations, why conservatories are added, doors blocked up and others formed, balconies removed or added, mullioned windows replaced by sash windows, window bars removed, gables replaced by cornices. These alterations were not always done for functional purposes. They were done to keep up with the ties or because notions above living changed, because one could not identify with what one took over or because it belonged to a different generation.” (Habraken and Valkenburg, 1999 p14)
​
As identified in Research, the current Hong Kong housing typologies are not dynamic enough to cater for the different stages of life, yet maintaining its affordability. The relationship of dwelling and architecture must change. Why should architecture be static once built! The goal of this final design proposal is to enable changes in architecture to facilitate for choices, adaptability and LIFE!
​
The final design proposal addresses all the criteria this thesis originally set out to resolve. Habraken once suggested three conditions in which the limitations of mass housing could be resolved.
-
Free combination – as little as possible should be decided in advance as to which families should be housed, and in what order.
-
The occupant’s environment is capable of constant renewal – the indifference of mass housing to the personal initiative of the dweller is the reason that he can never take possession of his environment, but at most can only adapt to what is offered to him.
-
Time – time is required so that the natural relationship, in its constant and involuntary activity, will fill out and refine the necessarily diagrammatic solution. It is necessary that during this time the district can renew itself in its parts, and can change from detail to detail.
When comparing with the final design proposal, the units are only standardised at the kitchen and bathroom – the two functions that users cared least about based on research in Phase 1. The modular parts available for purchase will allow users to change according to their life situation. Users no longer need to move house at each new stage of life, or at each change in composition of his / her family.
Without the dependency of heavy machinery for change, the occupants can easily renew their dwelling environment and start taking charge of what atmosphere best suits their living style. With time, the form of the building will constantly change. Imagine the possibilities when your adjacent tower is also expandable, the whole urban environment will start to become dynamic. No longer will buildings look alike, and the concrete jungle of Hong Kong will be transformed into an organic soft jungle.
One may question the role of architects in such world. Habraken provided some insight into such situation and suggested that “when the natural relationship functions, it is the architect who provides the contact with the occupier. He it is who as expert makes the connection between the natural relationship and a complex technology: he is the direct link between layman and profession.” (Habraken and Valkenburg, 1999 p29). Although users are free to create their own space, it is inevitable that professional advice would still be needed in terms of the exact parts to use, or development of more “updated” parts based on market trends - which facilitates for choices for occupiers.
To conclude, although it seems this design proposal is far-fetched, however it is the author’s strong opinion, based on the various tests and mock models, that the proposed expandable residential dwellings are very much possible with today’s technology. Architecture no longer needs to be static for the next 50 years once built!
