3. INTRODUCATION
In architecture, open building is an approach to the design of
buildings that takes account of the possible need to change or
adapt the building during its lifetime, in line with social or
technological change.
OPEN BUILDING
An alternative to mass housing.
Europe was going through a major housing shortage because
many buildings had been destroyed during the World War II.
Habraken’s text is a critique of the repetitive, massive,
homogeneous constructions built in the postwar era to alleviate
this shortage.
Residential architecture is built for people, who will never have the
slightest chance to make basic decisions about their living
environment. the idea of a house as a consumer, repetitive and
finished product.
HABRAKEN’S CRITIQUE
Habraken proposes the concept of house as a process. A dwelling
is understood as the relationship of the dweller with his
environment, a natural relation based on the acts of our daily lives
and it is deeply rooted in the foundations of our existen
PROBLEM
PROPOSE
5. SUPPORTS AND DETCHABLE UNITES
“ A SUPPORT INVOLVES THOSE DECISIONS OVER WHICH THE
COMMUNITY HAS CONTROL.
(IT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED INDIVIDUALLY)
THE DETACHABLE UNIT IS THAT AREA OVER WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL
DECIDES. ”
"The support is a structure that is designed and built in a specific
place. The refore, it may very well traditional structure, but could just
as easily be the result of an industrialized system. In that case it would
not be a 'housing system', but a 'support system’”
"A set of detachable units sniatnoc
eht
stnemele
hcihw
era
neht
tliub
otni
eht
troppus
ot
ekam
eht
gnillewd
.
sihT
seilpmi
taht
detachable units dluohs
eb
elbatpada
,
elbapac
fo
gnieb
desu
ni
ynam
tnereffid
snoitanibmoc
,
ni
tnereffid
troppus
serutcurts
A .
elbahcated
tinu
nac
suht
eb
deredisnoc
a
remusnoc
elbarud
,
dna
sa
hcus
ti
si
yrev
llew
detius
ot
ssam
noitcudorp ”
VARIATION the systematic design pf support book by NJhabraken
6. SUPPORTS AND DETCHABLE UNITES
"The distinction between support dna detachable unit suht
sehsiugnitsid
owt
sepyt
fo
noitcudorp
.
nI
hcae
aera
tnednepedni
evitaitini
tsum
eb
elbissop
,
tub
no
eht
rehto
dnah
eht
ngised
fo
stroppus
tsum
etadommocca
lla
elbissop detachable units ,
elihw
lla detachable units dluohs
eb
elba
ot
tif
yreve support.”
“ By building supports a community will be able to house itself. A dwelling is created when an individual builds a detachable unit into the
support. The dwelling is the result of both the community and the individual having played their parts.”
DETACHABLE UNIT
SUPPORT
VARIATION the systematic design pf support book by NJhabraken
7. LACATION AND ZISE OF SPACES
Zones and margins, are aids in the formulation of standards for
the planning of units within a designed, support.
The systematic determination of the utility of supports is based on
the design of the zone/margin system.
Certain rooms may overlap one or more zones, but have to end in
margins
Other areas can be completely within one zone or one margin.
ZONES AND MARGES AN ALPHA ZONE IS AN INTERNAL AREA, INTENDED FOR PRIVATE
USE AND ADJACENT TO AN EXTERNAL
A BETA ZONE IS AN INTERNAL AREA, INTENDED FOR PRIVATE
USE, AND IS NOT ADJACENT TO AN EXTERNAL WALL
A MARGIN IS AN AREA BETWEEN TWO ZONES, WITH THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF BOTH THESE ZONES AND TAKING ITS
NAME FROM THEM.
A DELTA ZONE IS AN EXTERNAL AREA INTENDED FOR PRIVATE
USE.
A GAMMA ZONE CAN BE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL BUT IS
INTENDED FOR PUBLIC USE.
VARIATION the systematic design pf support book by NJhabraken
8. LACATION AND ZISE OF SPACES
POSITION 1: A SPACE WHICH OVERLAPS THE ZONE AND ENDS
IN THE ADJACENT MARGIN.(Special purpose, General purpose
and Service spaces )
POSITION 2:A SPACE WHICH OVERLAPS MORE THAN ONE
ZONE AND ENDS IN A MARGIN. (General purpose )
POSITION 3: A SPACE WHICH BEGINS AND
ENDS IN THE SAME MARGIN. (Service spaces)
ZONE DISTRIBUTION AND SPACES
In the actual design process the position of different
categories of space should relate to their location and size.
it must be emphasized that a designer is free to formulate
conventions about the positions of spaces different from
those described here.
VARIATION the systematic design pf support book by NJhabraken
9. LACATION AND ZISE OF SPACES
A support in combination with a zone distribution can be considered as
a series of sectors. The same sectors can be combined in many different
ways, thus different supports can be created from the same set of
sectors.
A SECTOR GROUP IS A COMBINATION OF INTERCONNECTING SECTORS.
ZONE DISTRIBUTION AND COMPONENTS
A SECTOR IS PART OF A ZONE AND ITS ADJOINING MARGINS
THAT IS COMPLETELY OPEN AND CAN BE PLANNED FREELY.
The layout possibilities of the support are strongly influenced by
the distance between the load bearing walls. To understand the
layouts that can be realized, an analysis has to be made of the
possible uses of a sector.
there is relationship between a sector and the functions that it can
accommodate These functions and combinations
The designer is free to divide the area in a spatial structure into
sectors in whatever way is best.
The first sector group in the diagram has six sec- tors and in the two
adjacent sector groups there are seven and five sectors, respectively.
VARIATION the systematic design pf support book by NJhabraken
10. LOCATION AND SIZE COMPONENTS
Dimensions of components
Dimensions of spaces
a nominal dimension which is a multiple of
the module of the grid,
n x 30.
the locating dimension is the distance from
the component to the next grid line. the
tolerance is not part of the locating
dimensions
in the layout the faces of components
always occur in the 10cm band of the 10/20
grid.
in the cross section the finished floor level
coincides with a horizontal grid line.
layouts should be drawn 10/20 tartan grid.
cross sections should be drawn on a grid with
alternate 10 and 20cm bands parallel to the
vertical axis and uniform bands of (n x m)cm
where m = 10cm parallel to the horizontal axis.
%3d
VARIATION the systematic design pf support book by NJhabraken
11. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF THE METHOD
Every building can be regarded as asystem of components, ordered
according to certain rules. These components could be material ones, walls,
floors and roofs, etc. Alternatively, a building can be considered as a system
of spaces, a system in which the spaces are the components, and the relation-
ships between those spaces conform to certain rules.This systems theory
approach indicates that there is a close relationship between thedifferent
parts of the méthod used for des igning supports.
SPACES AND RELATIONSHIPS
Each space in the set is, by definition, suitablefor that function.Once the
space elements in a set have been defined by their dimensions and functions,
theallowed relationships between spaces can be determined. on the basis of
their functions, standards can beformulated a bout the position of spaces
relative to each other.apart from functions, other properties may be assigned
to spaces.
THE PROBLEM OF EVALUATION
if there is a set of standards about what constitutes a ‘well designed dwelling'.
which layouts, conformingto these standards, are possible in the support?First the
term 'well designed dwelling' must be defined.The standards for a well designed
dwelling must be formulated in such a way that they can be used to test a
layout.Secondly, it must be possible to proceed with the development of layout
variations which:a) conform to such predetermined standards and, b) can be
accommodated in the support thatis being evaluated. ( A standard is nothing
more nor less than a verifiable prearranged agreement, which is valid for a specific
length of time, within a specific context and for specific people.)
THE PROBLEM OF COORDINATION
The problem of coordination arises from the relationship between the
support and detach-able units.system could be floors, walls, columnsor other
physical components The problem of coordination is analogous to the
problem of evaluation in that there aretwo systems which are related in such
a way that the variations of the support systemThe solution to the problem of
coordination deals with the coordinating of two system
VARIATION the systematic design pf support book by NJhabraken
12. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
OPEN BUILDING SYSTEM
Context
Context
Context
Context
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE OPEN
BUILDING SYSTEM
INTRODUCATION
SUPPORT AND
INFILL SYSTEM
CRITIQUE OF THE
MOVEMENT
OUR OPINEN
APPLICATION
OPEN BUILDING FOR
THE FUTURE
HABRAKEN’S
THEORY
REFERENCE
13. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OPEN BUILDING SYSTEM
Originally established in the late
1960’s by N. John Habraken (and
later furthered by Stephen Kendall).
(Habraken first articulated the
principles of Open Building in his
book Supports: An Alternative to
Mass Housing, first published in
Dutch in 1962 and in English in
1972 and 1999 He argued that
housing must always recognize
two domains of action: the action
of the community and that of the
individual inhabitant. When the
inhabitant is excluded, the result is
uniformity and rigidity. )
From the late 1960s onward,
several pioneering projects were
completed in the Netherlands, the
UK, Japan [3] and elsewhere.
1 2 3 4 5
In 1964, the Foundation
for Architects Research
(the SAR) was founded
in the Netherlands
developed the design
methods for housing
based on Support/Infill
concept, A number of
successful experimental
projects has already
been built in Europe.
By this time also,
interest in the theory
and practice of Open
Building had grown
internationally.
In 1976, Habraken,
introduced a detailed
Open Building design
methodology in the
book "Variation: The
Systematic Design of
Support". On the
bases of analysing
conventional Dutch
housing, the book
describes a method by
which a link could be
made between the
actual base building
and the range of floor
plans.
Research was initiated
in the mid-1980’s at
the Technical
University Delft by the
Open Building group
under the direction of
Professor Age van
Randen, to explore
practical measures
needed to fully
implement the
Support/Infill
approach, focusing on
technical, regulatory
and financing issues.
Widespread interest in these
concepts and their practical
implementation led to the
formation of an international
commission. This group was
formed in 1996, under the
auspices of the CIB
(International Council for
Research and Innovation in
Building and Construction).
Members of the CIB W104
come from many countries,
who have built a career on the
Open Building approach.
14. SUPPORT AND INFILL SYSTEM
Context
Context
Context
Context
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE OPEN
BUILDING SYSTEM
INTRODUCATION
SUPPORT AND
INFILL SYSTEM
CRITIQUE OF THE
MOVEMENT
OUR OPINEN
APPLICATION
OPEN BUILDING FOR
THE FUTURE
HABRAKEN’S
THEORY
REFERENCE
16. Building design can be divided into three levels of
decision-making :
1- tissue level
2- support level
3- infill level
They are separate, yet dependent on each other .
The town fabric (tissue level) constitutes a
higher level than the buildings
positioned within the town fabric.
Buildings can be altered or replaced, while
the town fabric (tissue level) remains
consistent.
SUPPORT SYSTEM AND INFILL BY HABRAKEN’S
19. APPLICATION
An existing structural system can be used for
the design of a support.
This example consisting of prefabricated concrete
wall and floor plates which can be installed with a
simple joint, using a dry assembly technique, so
that the connections do not have to be poured in
situ.
The layout of the dwelling in the support should
be adaptable enough to allow most of the
variations that occur in modern single family
houses
VARIATION the systematic design pf support book by NJhabraken
23. OPEN BUILDING FOR THE
FUTURE
Context
Context
Context
Context
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE OPEN
BUILDING SYSTEM
INTRODUCATION
SUPPORT AND
INFILL SYSTEM
CRITIQUE OF THE
MOVEMENT
OUR OPINEN
APPLICATION
OPEN BUILDING FOR
THE FUTURE
HABRAKEN’S
THEORY
REFERENCE
24. OpenBuilding.co is an emerging group of Dutch architects and engineers
who are devoted to radically changing the building industry and the built
environment to enable a sustainable and personalised way of living.
Open Buildings support the transition from the consumer society to one
based on participation, involvement and inclusion. At the same time, Open
Buildings are a much needed concept to reduce its production of waste
and CO2-emissions by extending the lifespan of buildings and engaging in
circular economies.
OPEN BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE
25. OPEN BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE
living and working space is easily combined
on each floor.
In a flexible and modular approach, 70
families co-create a vibrant community and a
diverse mix of loft types.
a mix of housing, hotel, sports facilities,
hospitality and work/living ateliers, is a
sustainable
Stories not only offers multifunctional
spaces but will contribute to the biodiversity
in the area with substantial green on the
balconies.
Designed in co-creation with the future
residents, every apartment is different and
custom made
Bold architecture and creative engineering
offer a high level of adaptability.
26. CRITIQUE OF THE MOVEMENT
Context
Context
Context
Context
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE OPEN
BUILDING SYSTEM
INTRODUCATION
SUPPORT AND
INFILL SYSTEM
CRITIQUE OF THE
MOVEMENT
OUR OPINEN
APPLICATION
OPEN BUILDING FOR
THE FUTURE
HABRAKEN’S
THEORY
REFERENCE
27. CRITIQUE OF THE MOVEMENT
Open building architecture”,
a concept founded by N. John Habraken,
is an approach to design that increases
the variety, flexibility and quality of space,
ensures the idea of choice and
personalization in living for the
inhabitant
(Nascimento 2013).
In regards to inter-generational living, the
aspect of adapting to changing needs over
time is critical in order to adequately serve
the needs of our aging population, and by
means of open building architecture, one
can begin to focus design on the
user/inhabitant. The users, then, become
recognized as the decision making agents,
and in turn the architecture becomes more
suitable to the individual’s needs
(Nascimento 2013).
The notion of applying a singular scheme to
the living needs of the greater whole can no
longer be an acceptable means of designing.
In the sector of healthcare (hospitals, nursing
homes,etc.) this similar quality of
homogenized living conditions, void of any
personal identity, has come to be all too
familiar (Swensson 2012).
These ideas of choice and personalized
living are critical, largely in part to the
inherent emotional connection people
carry with the physical environment
(Marcus 2006).
Through the implementation of open building
architecture, one can break free of the cookie
cutter approach to design and begin to
disentangle the specific parts of a building,
thus enabling broader consumer choice in
laying out, equipping, and furnishing space
(Kendall 2002).
29. OUR OPINEN
From our opinion and after researching the details of the open building
system
We recommend and agree to use this system more in the field of
construction, because the style supports and places the human being and
his various needs over time as an important element of the design idea
based on it so that a structure is built while leaving areas that can be
divided and used according to the function of the place and the people’s
need for it, thus enabling this system to use Building area over time and
different needs help in sustainability and increase the life of the building
With a reservation that the buildings from the outside form a solid mass
that is similar and there is no big difference in it
