The skyscraper as a future social amplifier SOCIAL SCRAPER Astrid Parinder Master thesis at Chalmers Architecture Gothenburg, Sweden, 2017 SOCIAL SCRAPER The skyscraper as a future social amplifier Astrid Parinder, 2017 Master thesis Chalmers School of Architecture Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering Examiner: Ola Nylander Supervisor: Anna Braide Eriksson The skyscraper as a future social amplifier SOCIAL SCRAPER Abstract The typology of the generic contemporary high-rise building often acts as an isolator neglecting the need of informal meetings and social interactions through its lack of social spaces.However, the typical Swed- ish neighbourhood, on the contrary to the high-rise building, uses the in-between spaces for informal interaction as its core, hence forming a community which oper- ates through its common identity based on the local context and the social interaction between its residents. With this is mind, would it be possible to adopt and translate key qualitatives and quantiatives from the traditional neighbourhood into the high- rise typology? The main purpose with this master the- sis is to investigate and analyze the social problems within a skyscraper to see what can be changed and how social spaces can be implemented in order to increase social interaction within the building. Instead of seeing the skyscraper as a set of individual units with a central core, where the great- est possibility of interaction lies between the entrance lobby and the lift, would it be possible to instead re-organize the spatial arrangement based on an expanded internal communication system encouraging social interaction? The focus for the master thesis will neither be on the building’s construction or techni- cal elements, nor the economical feasibility, but rather on the social aspects; life quality, social interaction and sense of belonging. With a mixed research of literature, analyses of neighbourhoods, building typologies and an experimental design research, the aim for this master thesis is to speculate on an alternative high-rise design which reduces the social-phsycological problems related to generic contemporary high-rise buildings. 7 Content Abstract...................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................... 9 Background/Personal Experience 11 Purpose/Problem 12 Questions 13 Method 13 Delimitations / Focus 13 Aim / Result 13 2. Background ........................................................................ 15 The Housing Situation in Gothenburg Today 17 High-rise Buildings in Gothenburg 18 Future of High-rise Buildings in Gothenburg 18 What is a High-rise Building? 21 General Aspects For and Against 22 Impacts in the City 24 3. Theory ................................................................................. 27 To Live Today 29 Planning for Activities 30 Defensible Space 30 Social Neighbourhood 31 Visual Contact 31 Important Spaces 32 4. Analysing the High-rise ................................................... 35 Case Studies 37 The Barbican 39 Park Tower 41 Tellus Tower 43 5. Mapping the Neighborhood ............................................. 45 Mapping the Neighborhood 47 6. Implementation of knowledge ........................................ 53 Toolbox 54 Possible Toolbox Alterations 56 7. Proposal .............................................................................. 65 Contextual Iteration 66 Elaborated Toolbox 69 The Group 70 The Individual Unit 72 The Community 74 Communication & Communal Space 76 Hierarchy of Space 78 Sense of Belonging 81 8. Conclusion / Reflections .................................................. 83 9. References .......................................................................... 87 INTRODUCTION “To experience a sense of belonging, we need to reclaim our humanity and place more value on the power of relationships. We need to be with people and in situations where our falli- bility is accepted rather than treated as some- thing to be fixed. We need to reclaim time, to have time on our hands, time to waste, time for unplanned conversation, time for biding our time.” -Peter Block, 2009 Shanghai. Author’s own copyright. 10 11 Background/Personal Experience With the personal experience of living in Shanghai and London, two cities where new high-rise buildings are constantly being built, gave me the knowledge of how indi- viduals’ lives and their social interaction are formed completely different from what we are used to in Sweden. In Shanghai, high-rise buildings are built in order to fill the extreme lack of housing units while battling the equal lack of land. With millions of people living in this sprawl- ing city of Shanghai, high-rise buildings be- come the only solution in order to provide homes for its citizens. Thus, skyscrapers are no longer only built in order to create an identity, but rather to solve the combined problem of sprawl and shortage of housing units and land. However, with an extremely high construction speed, the high rise com- munities also come with great sacrifices. My personal experience of living in a high- rise building is mainly the lack of character and identity both in a social and an architec- tural aspect, aspects which can be assumed to derive from the need of high speed con- structions. Further more, most residential high-rise communities are of a common generic type. The exteriors and surround- ing areas often look pretty and trimmed with well managed greeneries and larger entrance floors, however I soon discovered that it was all just for show. The green areas were not to be used or touched and the large entrance halls were empty unused spaces. Also, there were no common areas or social spaces within the gated communities, which forced you, as an inhabitant, to adopt a very isolated lifestyle. Although this might be common to the western world, this becomes a problem due to the extreme contrast it poses to the traditional Shanghai style of living where people are used to live close to- gether with several layers of shared spaces. Evidently, there is a clear gap, socially and architecturally, between the traditional and the contemporary. Therefore, I find it high- ly intriguing to look into the possibilities of implementing and preserving the tradition- al social structures by informing and later adapting the typology of the skyscraper. This is not least valid to address in a Scan- dinavian context due to an increasing plan- ning and execution of this type of building typology. Overall, the housing shortage in Gothen- burg and Sweden in general poses mayor problems as we are now struggling with the big task finding quick and efficient solutions in order to potentially solve this housing shortage. As a result, the discussion about skyscrapers’ and high-rise buildings’ po- tential suitability as part of Swedish cities’ general contexts has long been an integral part of the housing shortage topic. Looking at the public opinion, there has been a larger opposition against skyscrapers and a gener- al concern on how they affect our skylines in a negative sense, not only in Sweden but also in the rest of the Europe as the number of approved high-rise projects reaches re- cord levels. But the discussion is starting to change. In London alone, over 200 high-rise buildings are planned for the coming years (The Guardian, 2014). Both Gothenburg and Stockholm will get their first skyscrapers, both over 200 m,with mostly positive feedback from the citizens, which obviously is quite intriguing and sur- prising. Thus, with this trajectory towards an increased implementation of skyscrapers in Sweden, it is important to address and ask if and how this global typology can be adapted to preserve and encourage the so- cial interaction commonly linked to low- rise developments? 12 13 Method Questions What are the problems associated to high- rise living and how can they be changed? What can be learned in terms of qualities from the “typical” Swedish neighbourhood and how can they be implemented into a high-rise residential building? How to design a high-rise residential build- ing in order to support and promote social interaction within the building? A mixed research of literature, analyses of neighbourhoods and good living conditions and building typologies, forms the back- bone of my background research. Through an analytic approach of a generic Swedish low-rise neighbourhood, private, semi pri- vate and public spaces can be mapped out described in order to find qualities and quantitatives which can be extracted, adapt- ed and possibly implemented into the high- rise structure. This is also put in relation to the current housing situation in Gothenburg and what it could mean to use the skyscrap- er as a general typology for the city’s future expansion of residential buildings. With these aspects as a common thread through out the thesis, the experimental research in terms of the single tower, focuses on typo- logical iterations in order to reach a poten- tial implementation and transformation of the skyscraper. Purpose/Problem There is a general tendency of citizens liv- ing, in social terms, increasingly isolated from each other as the density increases, thus generating a higher number of single households in Sweden (Statistiska central- byrån, 2014). Relating to traditional com- munities and neighbourhoods, the inter- dependent relationships and hence social structures create not only an individual sense of safety and belonging, but also form a common identity in which the local area, with its shops, cafés etc, thrive from. In comparison with the typology of the high-rise building, the latter clearly suggests the opposite. While high-rise dwellings do provide a high level of privacy, the possibili- ty for breathtaking views and a considerably alternative living experience from the con- ventional ground level habitation, high-rise living also faces several sociological prob- lems. An isolated form of living embraces the autonomous individual which has ac- cess to all its materialistic needs of contem- porary life, but completely lacks the sense of belonging as an effect of the built-in physical isolation and fragmentation characterising the typology. The skyscraper’s strict vertical orientation and internal movement of the building leaves very limited possibilities for social interaction or activity (Gang, 2015). The main purpose with this master thesis is to investigate and analyse the social prob- lems within a skyscraper to see what can be changed and how social spaces can be im- plemented in order to increase social inter- action within the building. By investigating how the ”typical” Swedish neighbourhood is constructed through its meeting points and potential social/common spaces, and by investigating what ”good” living condi- tions are, I want to look at the possibilities of translating and possibly implementing a similar ”system” into the high-rise build- ing. If we were to re-imagine this typology, could we make people be more willing to live in a compact building shared with hun- dreds of other people? Instead of seeing the skyscraper as a set of individual units with a central core, where the greatest possibility of interaction lies between the entrance lobby and the lift, would it be possible to instead re-organize the spatial arrangement based on an expanded internal communication system encouraging social interaction? Delimitations/Focus The focus for the master thesis will neither be on the building’s construction or techni- cal elements, nor the economical feasibility, but rather on the social aspects; life quality, social interaction and sense of belonging. My focus will be on communication areas, potential social spaces and public places within a skyscraper. I will also propose an alternative for the individual living unit to showcase how these could look like. Aim/Result The aim is to find an alternative high-rise design which reduces the socio-psycologi- cal problems associated with conventional high-rise buildings meaning: segregation, fragmentation and isolation. The design alternative is an exploration of the possi- bility of promoting human interaction and sense of community with regard to collec- tive identity and shared responsibility. The intention with this speculative adaptation of the typology is to suggest a prototype, not as an answer to one site specific site context, to broaden the general conception of what the typical high-rise living could be. -Stadsbyggnadskontoret, 2008 BACKGROUND “High density is often equialized with tall buildings. However, as far as residential areas are concerned, the same density can actually be achieved with moderate building heights due to the qualitative questions about the use and proportions of outdoor environments, space experiences and the close-by climate must be taken in consideration.” Gothenburg. Retrievd from Bing.com/maps 16 17 The Housing Situation in Gothenburg Today To have an own dwelling is a human right and adequate housing is an essential condi- tion for the individual to experience a sense of belonging within a community (Länsty- relsen Västra Götalands län, 2016). It is a question about the basic need of planning and managing our own lives. The sense of belonging is crucial for the inhabitants of the city but also for the wellbeing of the soci- ety on a larger scale. The sense of belonging can make the difference between a socially sustainable society and a socially destruc- tive society, the latter characterized by for example social anxiety. In Sweden, there is a great general lack of all types of housing units but in particular rental apartments. According to Länstyrelsen, 2016, there is to- day an unbalanced housing situation in the county of Västra Götalands, with a deficit of dwellings in 44 of its 49 municipalities. This is a problem not only affecting the in- dividual person but also the society. Young people need to stay in their family homes for a longer time and elderly need to stay in inaccessible dwellings, but it also affects companies in the sense of not being able to attract people with the right skills due to the lack of dwellings today. Additionally, the population is constant- ly growing, especially in the main urban areas of the county. This poses great prob- lems as total population within the county is expected to not only grow to 1,9 million people by 2030 but also increasing the num- ber of people above 80 years of age with 50 procent (Länstyrelsen Västra Götalands län, 2016). Hence, the problem is multifaceted in the sense of both increasing numbers but a heavy change of needs. However, the defi- cit of dwellings is particularly problematic for young people and people who are new to the housing market. According to Län- styrelsen, there is a shortage of 78 000 new dwellings today which translates to an av- erage need of annually constructing 7 800 new dwelling during the period 2016-2025. In comparison with the number of complet- ed dwellings in 2015, the annual construc- tion of residential units need to increase by roughly 22 percent immediately. 18 19 High-rise Buildings in Gothenburg Gothenburg has a long history of public scepticism against high-rise buildings and what this foreign typology could contribute to the city. Today Gothenburg is generally characterized by a low-rise structure with the exception of a few higher buildings, Gothia Tower (100 m) being the tallest fol- lowed by Läppstiftet (86 m), none of which are residential buildings. It is in recent years that the reluctance against high-rises have started to become more relaxed in terms of acceptance of a greater construction height in newly built areas from the Urban Plan- ning Department of Gothenburg. Figure 1. Gothia Towers, Korsvägen, Hotel. Figure 2. Posthotellet, Drottningtorget, Hotel. Figure 3. WSP, Ullevi, Office. Figure 4. Skan- ska, Gårda, Office. All pictures author’s own copyright. Future of High-rise Buildings in Gothenburg The lack of dwellings in Gothenburg is a growing problem for the city. Since 1990, the population has grown with 124 000 people but only 39 000 new dwellings have been added during the same period (Hyres- gästföreningen, 2017). For the Gothenburg 400th anniversary, 7000 new dwellings should be finished with the largest focus- point on the central areas (Göteborg 2021, 2017). In 2008 Stadsbyggnadskontoret released the report Stadsbyggnads-kvaliteter Göteborg on qualities for future planning of the City of Gothenburg. In the report they state that high-rise buildings may be appropriate in some cases where site and arguments are right for the purpose. After analyzing suit- able areas for high-rise buildings, the City of Gothenburg has been focusing on mainly two areas which are considered to be more appropriate for a higher and more dense ur- ban fabric as a result of the expanding city. The areas which Stadsbyggnadskontoret see as suitable and hence are being planned are around the central station and along Möl- ndalsån. Frihamnen and Norra Masthug- get are also seen as potential areas for some higher buildings. Karlatornet on central Hisingen, which is planned to be finished by 2020, will be the tallest building in Goth- enburg (240m). 20 21 What is a High-rise Building? Already from the early days of ancient civ- ilization, tall buildings have been part of the human endeavour. A simple look at the Tower of Babylon or the pyramids makes it easy to understand that the human urge to build towards the sky is not a new phe- nomena. One question interesting to reflect upon is the definition of a high-rise build- ing. The character of being a low, medium or high-rise building are rather relative measurements based on individual and sub- jective judgements. There are no definitive number of stories or meters that defines a typical high, medium or low-rise structure. However, a possible definition of a high-rise building can be explained as: ”A high-rise building is a building whose most important dimension is that of height, and which dominates it environment. Build- ings that are substantially higher that their surrounding.” (Cowan, 1974). This means that the definition of a high-rise building can vary depending on where in the world you are. The highest building in Sweden today is Turning Torso in Malmö reaching 54 floors (190 m) containing mostly dwellings. Compared to the highest building in the world, Burj Khalifa in Dubai which is 828 m, Turning Torso is still con- siderably low. Turning Torso, Malmö, residential building. The tallest building in Sweden. Retrieved from http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2015/08/ malmö’s-turning-torso-wins-10-year-award-ctbuh 22 23 General Aspects For and Against Claes Caldenby in 1990 wrote the book Höga hus i Göteborg - Varför, var och hur samt inte minst om where he reviews the ar- guments for and agains high-rise buildings. In the book he presents aspects to be taken into consideration during the planning of high-rise buildings, some of which will be explained below. Place on the world map To excel in the world through the building of high-rises, has during the 2000s boom been a frequently used argument for high- rise buildings. The significant amount of op- ponents to taller structures though means that it is not the height that puts the city on the world-map but rather the building in it self. Many of the higher buildings that are built today looks the same wherever in the world you are. With the same type of build- ings around the world, the idea of being one of a kind is lost. Iconic buildings are thus icons due to its architecture and not because of its height. Density The question regarding whether taller build- ings means higher density is divided. Some people believe that it’s possible to reach the same level of density with a low-rise struc- ture as with a taller, sparser structure. Tak- ing into consideration qualitative questions such as demands on outdoor environments, proportions and spatiality between build- ings, high-rise structures cannot be built as dense as a lower structure, especially when it comes to residential buildings. Howev- er, if these questions can be discussed and solved, a taller structure could mean a high- er density. City life With a high-rise building one usually wish- es a higher density and larger amount of people in a small area. Increased density of- ten means more people on the streets and a stronger basis for commercial activities, ser- vices and entertainment. But there are also potential chances that a high-rise building will absorb the city life, people move inside the building instead of outside it. A high- rise building might also create undefined spaces around it which in some cases can be perceived to be deterrent. Therefore it is of highest importance to plan for inviting street environments and public spaces. Orientability Landmarks are important for orientation in a city and contributes to an interesting sky- line. For good orientability it is important that the major streets and key locations are distinguished from the general urban fab- ric. Landmarks as a help for orientation is of largest importance to visitors or new res- idents in the city. View The view is a great value for a high-rise building. A tall building cannot only supply residents with a magnificent view but also the residents and visitors of the city by mak- ing for example the roof public. A high-rise building however may also mean a loss of view for its neighbours. Economy The question regarding if a high-rise struc- ture is of economical benefit due to the max- imum use of land is also widely discussed. The market prices are generally higher the more central to the city you come. Some mean that the value of a building also in- creases with a higher attraction in the city which is often created with a building which is taller and more expressive than average. The problem is that the taller the build- ing, the more installation and construction space is needed as well as the facade and material costs. Depending on the ratio of the construction costs and the demand for space the economical benefits may vary from different projects. Function Some buildings are, due to their function, of a higher sort as for example tv-towers, water towers, bridges and windmills. Few other functions demand taller buildings. Hotels and offices are functions that are more suit- able for taller buildings while dwellings are harder to find arguments for. 24 25 Impacts in the City Caldenby (1990) also describes other as- pects that require specific consideration on how high-rise buildings affects the urban environment in the city, some of which are explained below. Cityscape The city silhouette can be affected when many new high-rise buildings are added to the city. A city will inevitably change but changes of greater impact should be taken under consideration as they might result in great changes to the character and symbolic identification of a city. Spatiality One of the most important aspect of high- rise buildings are their connection with the street life and how it will change the urban fabric. It is not only the relationship between the height of the building and the width of the street that matters. How the area be- tween the houses is divided, furnished and inhabited also affects the impression. De- spite a well-defined urban space, the scale can still be too big for the individual person. Hence it becomes especially important next to tall buildings and larger urban places to maintain the human scale. Climate A tall building affects the surrounding cli- mate with both wind and shadow. A tall building brings down the wind to street level, especially if the distance to the closets neighbouring building is less than the initial building’s height. By extruding the ground floor horisontally or adding a cap to the building, the wind is allowed to break and thus decrease. A high building also casts long shadows on the surrounding ground. Slimmer buildings shadow a place for shorter time of period compared to a wider building. Traffic A high-rise building often means an in- creased density of people and greater load on existing public transport and traffic in general. High-rise buildings are therefore advantageously placed near places with good transport links. Public transport ben- efits from a larger base of travellers, who in turn makes public transport more attractive. -Elisabeth Wood, 1961 “Today, cities desperately need to aspire once more to the goal of design that will bring to city people a richer and more fulfilling envi- ronment, because we do not know yet how to design urban residential neighborhoods that compete with the suburbs for social desirabil- ity, especially for families with children.” THEORY Picture retrievd from https://blogg.bostadsportal.se/2015/01/20/vi-star-inte-ut-med-grannen/ 28 29 To Live Today When we plan and design for new residen- tial areas, it’s easy to focus on the quantifi- ables such as floor areas, accessibility and economic gain and it’s easy to forget the people and the lives they are going to in- habit the new area. Therefor the question becomes if it is possible to plan for the life we want to happen within the borders and walls of the houses we design? According to Gehl(2013, ch. 5.2), the hu- man scale is of highest importance during the planning cities. He argues that we need to follow the principle: first life, then space, then buildings when designing in the larger city scale. Life and space needs to be treated before the buildings because life is funda- mentally the essence of the city. Therefore, the starting point when designing cities should always be human mobility and hu- man senses. Basically because they provide the biological basis for activities, behaviour and communication within the city space. Without any people and without any life, there is no city, only a formation of build- ings. Could this way of thinking be adopted to the scale of a residential neighbourhood? Just as the city, we plan and design residen- tial buildings for one purpose, made by and for us, the humans and the life we intend to live in it. Without any life, the building will only be a space, filled within the borders of four walls. But what signifies a good life in a neighbourhood? Just like Gehl believes that life in the city is created by its inhabitants, it is the residents who create the life within the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood is developed and formed by the group of peo- ple living there, otherwise it would only be a set of isolated autonomous units. There- fore, I believe, the life of a neighbourhood can be seen as a measurement of its social interaction between its inhabitants. Instead of starting with the building, is it possible to start from the life within it and work our way out to the building when we plan for residential neighbourhoods? Meaning, starting with life, adding space and finally articulating and materialising it through the built structure? 30 31 Planning for Activities Everyday outdoor activities can be influ- enced by a numbers of different factors. What we choose to do when we are outside has much to do with the physical environ- ment, and this is one of the factors inform- ing us why we use the outdoor space as we do. According to Gehl (2006 pp. 11-16), outdoor activities in public and semi-pub- lic space can generally be divided into three different categories; necessary activities, op- tional activities and social activities. Necessary activities include all everyday vit al activities such as go to work or school, wait for the bus, do the weekly shopping etc. Necessary activities often mean walking or waiting. These activities will continue all year round independently of the physical environment, we simply have no choice. Optional activities means activities where there are needs to do so if time and place make it possible. These kind of activities include taking a walk without purpose or sitting down on a park bench. For this cate- gory, the physical environment is vital. With an unpleasant outdoor environment, these kinds of activities are lost and only the nec- essary activities will occur. Social activities are dependent on other peoples presence in the particular space. The activities include childrens’ play, con- versations, communal activities but most of all just the passive contact by simply seeing or hearing other people. These types of ac- tivities are developed in connection with the other two types of activities and occur spon- taneously as a direct consequence of people visiting and using the same spaces. Physical planning is important for social activities to occur simply because the more chances people get to spend time at the same place, the more opportunities for social meetings. The possibility to meet neighbours in con- nection to daily routines, the necessary activities, increases the chance for conver- sation and spontaneous social interaction and also chances to develop contact with your neighbours. It’s easier to maintain a relationship with someone if you see each other frequently and thus have more direct contact, compared to if your only contact is by lets say telephone. Gehl(2006, pp 29-31) means that if people perceive a sense of be- longing to an area beyond the border of the actual dwelling it will result in a greater use of surrounding public spaces. For example, parents might be more willing to allow their kids to play outdoors at an early age if they feel that the space partly belongs to them, compared to if they don’t. Social Neighborhood According to a survey made by Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander(1997), where 100 residents of different kinds of various Swed- ish neighbourhoods were asked about living conditions, 35 percent answered that the neighbours are the most important aspect when it comes to living conditions. 35 per- cent answered neighbours combined with other factors, such as appearance or a well functioning courtyards, as the most impor- tant aspect. A factor which seemed commonly impor- tant to the residents of a given neighbour- hood is the boundary between the private and common space. A border between the private life and the common space seemed to be of high importance in order to be able to protect yourself from intrusive visitors. This border can be just as simple as the front door of a dwelling where the private sphere is inside the home and the collective is out- side. Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander means that many people seem to enjoy the contact with neighbours as long as they don’t feel the pressure of having to invite them. In- stead, having the contact outside the dwell- ing is in favour, in order to keep the home as the private sphere. According to Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander people are not willing to invite the neigh- bours into their homes, therefore the com- mon areas of a neighbourhood are neces- sary in order to sustain the contact between individuals. The common areas therefore become stages of social interaction. Further follows a summery of aspects from Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander which are important in the relationship between neighbours: 1. It is important to know who your neigh- bours are. People strongly prefer to rec- ognize the people using the common spaces. People you don’t recognize gen- erates insecurity. 2. People prefer to meet their neighbours in pleasant and social environments. They want to be seen by others and to be able to stop quickly for a chat with a familiar face. 3. A large impact on the feeling of secu- rity is the possibility to get help and to help others when needed. People are not interested in a continuous helping rela- tionship but rather smaller gestures. 4. People appreciate the possibility to solve problems together, for example when acting against the property owners. This is due to the increased self-conscious- ness generated by the sense of belong- ing to a bigger group, altering a greater impact compared to a single person. Defensible Space Visual Contact Newman (1976, p. 52.) believes that a more human physical environment for the in- habitants would exist if a collective sense of responsibility was developed for the common areas. He argues that areas such as common swimming pool, tennis court or meeting rooms do not contribute to an increased sense of collective territory in a high-rise building. Instead, the number of people using these kinds of facilities is be- yond the comprehension of the individual. Clearly, the value of a facility shared with others therefore decreases with the number of people using it. Newman believes that a smaller outdoor play and sitting area with the intention to be used by groups of up to twelve families has greater significance for each family compared to a larger area shared by more families. Newman (1976, p. 77.) means that for an area to work as a collective group and for people to feel the sense of belonging, the visual contact combined with the “right” numbers of units is vital and should be con- sidered. Looking at the typical villa street, a family may feel closer to the neighbours if the distances are shorter and the visual con- tact between the families are better. The far- ther distances between the dwellings means a less intimate and more casual relationship between the neighbours. 32 33 The Courtyard The courtyard is a social arena which, com- pared to the private apartment, provides possibilities for social interaction with- out being too intrusive or private. Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander(1997 pp. 104-108) suggests that people do not wish to feel that they are forced to socialize but rather have the opportunity to it when needed. Impor- tant factors for a well functioning courtyard are: • Aesthetic qualities; greenery, material and the preconditions for usage. • The sense of belonging; if the courtyard should be private for the residents only instead of open for everyone. • Child-friendly; the children families are the most frequently users of the court- yard. • Location related to entrances; entrances located in direct contact to the courtyard means higher usage of the courtyard. In terms of Sweden as a local context, a problem with the courtyard as the most im- portant space for social interaction within the neighbourhood is the natural decrease of social interaction during the cold and dark winter months. The Front yard When it comes to row-house neighbour- hoods, Gehl, Thornton & Brack (1977) be- lieve that there are significant differences between private and semi-private outdoor yards. They state that the front yard is 10 times more used than the backyard simply because the semi-private front yard also is the pathway from the street into the house and therefore is passed by all members of the household several times a day, com- pared to the backyard which you always have to make an active choice to use. Even if it’s most likely to be shorter visits and usages; passing through, picking up the mail, or sitting down on the stair drinking your morning coffee, it still influences the perceived character and overall safety of the neighbourhood. The more time people spend on the street or places seen from the street, the more possibilities for people to actually meet and interact. The front yard, with visual access to the street is clearly more private than public, yet the distance to the street and the proximity to the dwelling creates a sense of semi-privacy. The sense of full privacy is realized when entering the house. To create a soft threshold means to create a gradual transition from public to private. This means providing opportunities for people to remain on the public side of the house to be able to interact with other people on the street or in other yards, but at the same time remain within the ”pri- vate territory”, as in a safety-zone. Below follows a summery of aspects from Gehl, Thornton & Brack (1977) which can influ- ence the possibilities for interaction in the semiprivate yard: • The yard should have a clear boundary and be defined with for example a fence, high enough to lean on but low enough to see over. • The area should provide spaces for ac- tivities, such as gardening • The route to and from the house should pass through the yard • The distance from the street to the front door of the house should not be longer than allowing for conversation between someone on the street and someone sit- ting on the front stair. • The yard should provide comfortable places to sit and should be protected from rain. Important Spaces The Stairwell The stairwell consists of different compo- nents; entrance/lobby, staircase, landing platform and in some instances the lift. Ad- jacent to the stairwell is often ancillary spac- es such as storage, laundry and direct con- tact to garage. According to Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander (1997, pp. 118-120), apart from communication, the stairwell can be used in different ways. • To decorate; people enjoy adding their own mark in the stairwell such as some sort of decoration on your door or a flower in the stairwell window. • Storage; for example bicycles, strollers or outdoor toys. This is something that typically causes irritation among the residents since it normally is not a place for storage. • Conversation with neighbours; a simple conversation or hello can be an impor- tant confirmation that you know and recognize your neighbours. The Laundry According to Olsson, Sondén and Ohland- er(1997, p. 138.) people seem to like the idea of seeing the laundry-facilities as a meeting place. The laundry-facilities pro- vide an informal space where you meet your neighbours and where you can have an undemanding conversation without the feeling of being forced to socialize. Some people even put in a routine to meet at the laundry-room at the same time every week to wash their clothes together. The Athe- na-house at ”Bo-mässan”-92 was designed by female architects only and they gave the laundry-facilities a central place in the middle of the building to favour of comfort and interaction between especially women. Also, by glazing up the laundry towards the stairwell or adjacent common spaces made it easier for people to see who was washing and therefore easier stop by and say hello. Glazing the laundry is also a way to prevent people from stealing. ANALYSING THE HIGH-RISE Shakespeare, 1623 “What is the city but the people” Shanghai. Photo by Michael Westerlund 36 37 Case Studies This chapter will present three case studies of high-rise apartment buildings with the intention to familiarize the reader with built and non-built examples of the typical high- rise building design in order to analyse and localize common issues of the execution. To get a wider picture, the case studies have been selected according to different build- ing shape and floor plans as well as time of construction; One older example built in the 70s, one contemporary example and one not yet built example. An important consideration in the analysis of a high-rise building is the internal hier- archy of space and the varying degrees of privacy. For example, the lobby area is the threshold between the street and the build- ing and functioning to serve a great number of people in the entire building. The lobby is often the only common area shared by the inhabitants of the building, but due to the great amount of people sharing this space and the dislocation from the individual dwellings, the lobby does not contribute to the sense of collective territory or extension of the individual unit. The individual corridor served by the eleva- tor on each floor is the next step of semi-pri- vate space. The corridor does not belong to anyone in particular, rather the entire floor as a group, although the typical corridor is often of the smallest possible area and is only used as transportation from the elevator to the private apartment. The apartment door is the definite transition point between the extremely private sphere and the semi-pri- vate corridor. Due to the small amount of space in the corridor it’s not surprising that doors to apartments normally are closed as a result of the inhabitant defending its right to privacy. Turkington, van Kempen and Wassenberg (2004, p. 11.) believe that many of the collec- tive and semi-public spaces within a high- rise building such as corridors, entries and garages has been proved to be quite prob- lematic areas rather than an inviting place for people to meet and interact. In many cases such spaces have become major issues for vandalism and public safety. 38 39 The Barbican, London The Barbican, a large building complex in central London, consist of 13 residential building, 3 of which are high-rise(44 sto- ries), grouped around a central courtyard. The complexed, designed by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in 1976, contains not only dwellings but also the culture centre Barbi- can Centre. The residential areas are all con- nected by a “highwalk” system away from any roads which helps keep Barbican life peaceful and isolated from the rush of the city(Wikipedia, 2017). Due to the short numbers of apartments on each floor(three) the chances of meeting someone are considerably small. Though, the communal space outside the elevators is rather big and with a connecting shared balcony/terrace which invite for a spontane- ous conversation. Since the entire building complex is sharing the same courtyard, the chances for feeling a sense of belonging to the shared outdoor environment are small. Vertical communication Not visible common space Non human scale Few apartments/ floor Natural meeting place Private balconies Common space Private space 40 41 Park Tower, Antwerp Park Tower, designed by Studio Farris in 2014, is a residential high rise building in the historic town in Antwerp, Belgium. With the height of 78m, park Tower is one of the tallest building in Antwerp today. The building offers studios and apartments in different sizes and the scheme responds to today’s growing need for comfortable liv- ing space for a diverse range of age groups. The building is vertically divided into two groups with the first 10 floors focusing on smaller studios for single-persons house- holds, students and expats meanwhile the next 10 floors are focused on elderly care facilities. From the main entrance of the ground floor, the different groups of inhab- itants can reach their own floors using sep- arate elevators. Each unit have one private terrace/ balcony, protected from wind with glass panels (archdaily, 2017). The long and thin corridor on each floor is separating the dwellings on each side from each other in the same time as it doesn’t provide any qualitative place for meeting. The private balconies are all linked togeth- er which slightly breaks the barrier and increases the visual contact between the apartments. The main entrance of the build- ing is the only natural meeting place for the residents. Long and narro w Vertical communication Semi-private balconies,lack of interaction Non human scale Disconnected entrance Private space Common space Small space for interaction Semi-private balconies 42 43 Tellus Towers, Stockholm Tellus Towers, designed by Wingårdh ar- chitects, are two residential towers planned to be built in Stockholm, Sweden. The two towers are planned to be 78 and 58 floors tall. The project is planned to start in 2019 and be finished 2021(Wikipedia, 2017). 95% of the total amount of dwellings will be stu- dios or one bedroom apartments. The motto for the new project is ”Stay small, Live big- ger”, mening limited living space but with high quality. The Hong Kong based archi- tect Gary Chang has used the concept ”mul- ti-use-of-space” when designing the floor plans with sliding walls as a way to make the space more effectiv(ssmliving, 2017). Except for the corners, all apartments have only one way orientation of lights and ex- treme limited flexibility for personalization. Due to the extreme space efficient floor plan, the communal space on each floor is very limited with no contact with exterior or out- door view. A central core in the middle of each floor separates the two sides and pre- vents visual contact between neighbors. The floors are not connected in any other way than through elevators and fire emergency, leaving the very disconnected entrance hall as the main meeting place in the building. One w ay orie ntatio n Limited flexibility Vertical communication Non human scale Disconnected courtyard Private space Common space Lack of daylight Blocking visual connection MAPPING THE NEIGHBORHOOD “The urban, architectural and civil wealth of a city is that of its collective spaces, that of all the places where collective life develops, is represented and is remembered.” -maul de Sola-Morales, 1992 Picture retrievd from http://www.business.dk/bolig/husejere-er-blevet-rigere-i-ni-ud-af-11-landsdele 46 47 With the base in previous literature this chapter will attempt to collect, categorize and define qualities and quantities of the ”tradi- tional Swedish neighborhood”. This analy- sis intends to capture the largely subjective aspects of civic and private space, based on previous theory. Nevertheless, this definition of qualities is not meant to be found in one specific Swedish neighborhood, but is rather from a collection of various places, neigh- borhoods and typologies. By defining and describing the qualities found in the neighborhood sets the start of the transformation of these into concrete de- sign parameters used later on in the process. Mapping the Neighbourhood 48 49 Identity Individuality The typical residential neighbourhood is of human-scale. Whether or not a space is of human-scale is determined by its propor- tions. Lower height and narrow streets can be considered to be of human-scale. A hu- man scaled neighbourhood offers propor- tional, material and spacial intimacy which is more appropriate for dwellings and every- day life than for example high-rise building blocks. (MVRDV, 2012) Neighbourhoods functions as collectives: they offer the sense of belonging and feeling of being part of a supportive group. With shared ways of living, the neighbourhood creates a social security for its inhabitants. Collectivity is not only a measure of social interaction but also of the mixture between private and public paces. (MVRDV, 2012) Human scale Collectivity Every neighbourhood has an identity, none is ever the same. The neighbourhoods re- spective identity offers a coherent reflection of the characteristics of their inhabitants, cultures and programs. The common identi- ty induces a common social pride of belong- ing to a group. The strength of identity of a place can be measured by its overall visual coherence. (MVRDV, 2012) A neighbourhood is developed and created by its inhabitants which makes all neigh- bourhoods individual and exclusive. Neigh- bourhoods which allow for the personal and unique touch and the freedom of expression give the keys to individualization. The pos- sibility to adopt and change the autonomous space creates a sense of personalization. (MVRDV, 2012) 50 51 The semiprivate courtyard is often the core of the collective community within the neighbourhood. If the courtyard also functions as the entrance to the building, the chances of meeting your neighbours are greater (Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander, 1997). The activity in the courtyard can be a measurement of the communal interaction and cohesion. The front yard is a private space, stepping toward semipublic space. The front yard is used daily due to location in between the entrance door and the street. Its easier and more likely for neighbours to have a quick and relaxed conversation in the front yard compared to the private balcony because their intended use and thus mindset of the user combined with the actual distance be- tween the dwellings now connected exter- nally (Gehl, Thornton & Brack, 1977). Courtyard Frontyard The stairwell is a natural meeting point within the building. If the stairwell needs to be used, it’s more likely to meet some of your neighbours here compared to when waiting for the lift. The stairwell is also a more comfortable place to meet compared to the lift as the interaction naturally can feel more forced. (Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander, 1997). Stairwell IMPLEMENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE “A healthy social life is found only, when in the mirror of each soul the whole communi- ty finds its reflection, and when in the whole community the virtue of each one is living.” Rudolf Steiner Picture retrievd from http://www.gp.se/nyheter/västsverige/stor-lego-stöld-stoppades-i-bohuslän-1.144114 54 55 Toolbox The Individual Unit All units will have the same proportions with certain given preconditions such as bathrooms. The remaining floor-plan is flexible for the resident to be used as pre- ferred. A smaller footprint and instead the height of a duplex apartment, means the double amount of units on each floors com- pared to single floor apartment with larger footprint. Double amount of units on each floor, means double chance for social inter- action. Each unit will have a smaller space in front of its entrance, as alternative to the individ- ual balcony, free to be used as preferred. The Community One community is a group of four floors( two duplex floors,) altogether 15-25 apart- ments, which will be connected with a stair- well as internal communication. Each com- munity will have a common space with a main courtyard, which you will have to pass to reach your apartment. Its up to the inhabitants to plan and use the vertical space within the common area which will form an individual expression of the common space. 56 57 Possible Toolbox Alterations Focus: The Courtyard This alternative focuses on the courtyard as the main element. Coming out from the elevator, you are in direct contact with the common space. Negatives with this alteration is the impossi- bility to have the same footprint of individual units as well as the absent of boundary between private and common space. This alternative offers a large sized communal courtyard but leaves minimal opportunities for any sort of semi-private space in front of the apartments. A good visual contact with neigh- bours is possible for at least half of the units. This alteration provides good light condition from one direction and for some units moderate light from opposite side of apartment. Private / Semi / Common Space 80% Visual contact Light conditions 10% 58 59 Focus: Transition of openness This alternative focuses on the transitions from public to private space. Coming out from the elevator you reach the fully communal and public space. Reaching towards the individual units the space gets more private. Each units will have free space in front of the entrance to as a last step between the private and semi-private space. Negatives with this alternation is the non-specified common space and the clear division of the two sides. Private / Semi / Common Space 75% 5% Visual contact Light conditions 10% This alternative offers two smaller communal courtyards on either side of the elevator. More focus is set on semi-private space in front of the apartments. The community is clearly divided in two groups which affects the visual contact. This alteration provides good light condition from one direction and moderate to good light from a second, and in some cases from a third side. 60 61 Focus: Visibility This alternative focuses on the sense of belonging and visual contact as main quality. All units on the floor will have visual and close connection to all other from the entrance. Negatives with this alternation is the depth of the units and lack lights from two direction. This alternative gives best possible visual contact with the neighbours as all entrances are cen- tralized in the middle. Due to the arrangement of the units, no opportunities for semi-private space in front of the apartments are possible. This alternations is lacking in light conditions since only 20% of the apartments will have light from two direction. Private / Semi / Common Space 90% 5% Visual contact Light conditions 62 63 Focus: Light conditions This alternative focuses on getting as good light conditions as possible for each unit with view from at least two direction for each apartmet. Negatives with this alternation is the division of the four wings and lack of usable common space. This alternative is lacking the usable communal space but provides a good semi-private space in front of each dwellings. Due to the clear separation of the four wings, the visual contact is also lacking. All apartments will have good light from two directions. Private / Semi / Common Space 90% 5% 5% Visual contact Light conditions PROPOSAL “Indeed, all ages desire social interaction; it´s part of being human.” -Jeanne Gang, 2015 66 67 Contextual Iteration GÅRDA ULLEVI STAMPEN KORSVÄGEN As a generic building, the proposal could be placed in any suitable space for a high-rise residential tower. The proposed design is not an answer to a specific site context even though a site has been chosen. The select- ed site is instead set to serve an example on how this typology could be implemented in the city context of Gothenburg. The site is in Gårda in central Gothenburg in an area where it today already is planned for at least three new high-rise buildings, one which they already started the preparatory ground work for. The planned building at the chosen site has set some of the preconditions for the proposal such as building heigh(140m) and available footprint. Situation plan 1:2000 0 100m N 68 69 Elaborated Toolbox Central Courtyard Light Conditions Visibility Transition of Openness After evaluating the alterations from previ- ous chapter, a merged proposal of the four iterations, with further developed focus points, was drafted with the design parame- ters listed to the right as starting points. 1. Provide a secure living environmen. 2. Provide flexible accommodations for the residents to design after one’s need. 3. Encourage a sense of belonging in the community within the building. 4. Provide activities which will make the communal area a space for spontaneous interaction. 5. Provide space to permit residents to ex- tend territorial claim beyond the indi- vidual unit. 70 71 The Group Pairing the individual units 18 of the 20 apartments in each commu- nity are duplexes. Each apartment has got an own semi-private front yard instead of a fully private balcony on the external fa- cade. The apartments are pared in groups of two which will twist in their form between the two floors. In this way, each apartment will have equal light conditions with at least one wider side of exterior exposure and will have light from at least two directions, in some cases even four. Wet-area. Dark core Wet-area. Dark core Indirect sunlight Indirect sunlight Direct sunlight Direct sunlight Ground floor Second floor Possible space for staircase Wet-area. Space for bathroom and kitchen Semi-private frontyard Possible space for staircase Ground floor Second floor 72 73 Ground floor 1:100 The Individual Unit Example of Floor plans Each apartment has a footprint of 12 x 6 me- ters, resulting in a floor area of 120 m2 per unit. Shafts will be centralized to the core of each apartment and thus set the condi- tions regarding where to place wet areas and kitchen, otherwise it is up to the residents’ to choose and design the internal arrangement of their apartment respectively. The largely sized apartments could easily be designed as a four bedroom apartment suitable for a larger family. Second floor 1:100 0 5m 74 75 The Community Groups forming Relations Interior perspective from common space The residential tower houses 12 commu- nities, each organized in groups of duplex apartments over four floors. Instead of having larger single floor apartments on four floors, duplexes on every second floor double the chances for residents to meet a neighbour. Each community consists of 20 apartments. The numbers of apartments/ families that are likely to develop a friend- ship depend in part on the visual contact. A smaller group of people are more likely to start a conversation and use a common/ shared space compared to a larger group of people. The selected amount of apartments, is a figure which is believed to be in the col- lective comprehension of one individual. This means, by limiting the community to twenty families permits a resident to identi- fy herself/himself as part of the group living in one shared community. Main Courtyard Visual contact with courtyard Visual contact with neighbours Southern direction Public space Semi public space Semi private space Private space 76 77 Play Workshop Outdoor Kitchen Post Communication & Communal Space The shared communal space is of south- wards orientation, making it a pleasant sun- lit space all year round. The common space will be a semi-outdoor climate zone with a glazed facade to protect from wind and al- low full usage all year round but without the isolation to keep the feeling of being out- door and allow seasonal differentiation. The common space encourage activities such as socializing and recreation while also pro- viding best possible conditions for garden- ing and raising of plants. Access to each community is provided by lifts which stop at two of the four community-floors. The main stop is at the bottom floor of each community where the mailboxes and main common area is located. The two entrance levels are connected with a larger stairwell in the central core, functioning as internal communication between the floors. The larger main common zone is located southwards on the first floor of the community with a various ceiling height of one to four levels. Balconies reaching out over the main common space on second and third floor overlooks the main common space and enjoys the same sunlit southern exposure so that the entire communal zone receive the best given sunlight throughout the day, all year round. On the balconies, residents are provided with space for gardening or other activities based on the need and wishes from the residents. Laundry amenities and storage are located on the second and fourth floor. Third floor 1:400 Fourth floor 1:400 Gardening Gardening Laundry & Storage Laundry & Storage Ground floor 1:200 0 10m Second floor 1:400 0 20m N Gardening 78 79 Hierarchy of space The main common space is reached direct- ly from the elevators on the bottom floor of each community. This space is primary used by the twenty neighbouring families and it’ is the largest of the common spaces, in some parts reaching to four levels in height while occupying a floor area of approximately 60 m2. By placing the common space in direct contact with the lifts, it increases the chanc- es for spontaneous meeting and usage of the common spaces. The semi-private spaces corresponds to the low-rise neighbourhoods shared ”streets” and is used by the residents on the same floor, however they are consid- erably smaller than the main common space in order to fill the function as infrastructure. Each apartment has got their own semipri- vate front yard as a ”buffer-zone” between the semiprivate street and the fully private apartment. The hierarchy between spaces is to be com- pleted with the contribution of personaliza- tion of the residents. The semi-private front yard is fully up to the residents to decide how to use. The nature of the main common space may also vary among the different communities, depending on interests of the individual families and people sharing the space. 80 81 Sense of Belonging Because of the fact that the common space is re- stricted to only the twenty families inhabiting each community, it helps to establish a sense of belonging to this space and it’s therefor easier for the residents to develop a friendship or casual contact within the group while maintaining an individual sense of re- sponsibility. CONCLUSIONS / REFLECTIONS 84 85 Conclusions/Reflection I started this master thesis with a self expe- rienced problem that came to me when I lived in Shanghai for one year. Living in a skyscraper, although in the context of China often meaning a generic residential tower, has always been something of a dream to me. Breathtaking views and living above the city has always fascinated me, and still does. However, the year in Shanghai also made me familiar with common typology-related issues such as isolation and and social frag- mentation, which soon made me realize the solid frame it imposed on peoples liv- ing habits. Obviously, my personal expe- rience was also affected by the evident gap between mine and locals communication skills and cultural exchange. However, the blocked interaction between the inhabitants were clearly built-in isolating characteristics of inhabitation, which can be considered as commonly known. Regardless, the implementation of sky- scrapers as a design strategy for future cities keeps increasing . A common argument is to save land and hence increase the number of people/km2. I find this intriguing as it is not only a global argument for building to- wards the sky but also in our local context of Sweden and mainly our top 3 cities accord- ing to size. In addition, the Swedish context also offers the arguments of a unique lack of housing units and as a result too high hous- ing prices. Thus one can summarize these factors as being stronger than the fact that Sweden’s potential lack of land can be dis- cussed heavily. In regard to public opinion, the result has become a gradually shifting attitude to- wards a positiveness towards an increasing implementation of the high-rises. There- fore, a large number of taller buildings are being planned or being under construction, where the 240 m high Karlavagnstornet is the tallest. As these types of structures be- come embedded as logical entropies of our cities, this will naturally bring a shift of the visual perception of Swedish cities’, how we move and interact, how local centre are planned and thus sociologic structures. Therefore, it is highly relevant to discuss the potential impact on how to prevent the generally built-in destructive forces of this typology. To do this, we first need to map and under- stand the fundamental differences between a high-rise and a low-rise, the latter being a commonly used building type in Sweden. Research shows that whether the amount of livable square meters in the end differ be- tween the two typologies are clearly divid- ed. Due to the problematic question regard- ing the need of space in between structures there is no clear answer to which typology offering highest density. Secondly, evalu- ating what qualities and lifestyle the dif- ferent typologies bring, the differences are more clear. The high-rise offers a high level of privacy,views and a considerably alter- native living experience. Hence it is exclu- sive. Meanwhile the low-rise neighborhood structure is clearly more focused on the collective group and to create a sense of be- longing outside the private unit. As an architect, but also as an habitant of a larger city, I argue that social contact with neighbors is of highest importance when it comes to perceived living quality. Since cre- ating buildings is what we do, it becomes strikingly clear that architects can affect and improve the possibility for social interaction by the way we design and plan for new resi- dential areas and a possible evolution of the high-rise. An example of this when looking at low-rise blocks is the immediate positive effect on peoples’ wellbeing a well planned courtyard has. It increases the sense of home, the engagement and effort residents’ put in the environment and also the interac- tion and welcoming of people. All of which are tools completely forgotten or neglected in the generic high-rise. This might be the case as, in an historical sense, the typical low-rise neighborhood is an old and well known typology. It has be- come conventional and therefore the know- how on how to maximize the square meters as well as creating a good living atmosphere is well known. When it comes to high-rise buildings on the other hand, all these fac- tors and knowledge seem to vanish. It is as if our limited power within the design pro- cess narrows down in the same pace as the building becomes taller. Leaving us to only play with pure economical factors neglect- ing humans’ and nature’s needs. This is evi- dent as the most common reasons for build- ing a high-rise residential building is either to maximize the numbers of dwellings on a limited plot, for a single investor, or to make an icon building as a statement within the city. Unfortunately, neither of these options cares primarily about the human, the user, the inhabiter. So why does there need to be a difference in how we implement our knowl- edge and fundamental values depending on if we are designing a high-rise or low-rise? I see this as a result of a natural left-over from a tradition of low-rise structures and skepti- cism about high-rises which seem to put us in limbo as professionals not knowing how to implement our beliefs. Thus, I believe that we need to equalize the different typologies in terms on priority on life qualities in order to face the built-in issues characterizing the high-rises of today. The result of this master thesis proposes an alternative prototype of how a high-rise could be arranged in order to broaden one’s potential conception. Therefore, the thesis showcases a speculative approach on how it could be possible to react to the most com- mon challenges regarding high-rise build- ings starting with mapping the experience and knowledge from planning a generic neighborhood as part of a high-rise down to a site specific iteration. As a consequence, great emphasis has not been laid on con- struction or economical factors, but rath- er on social aspects related to the building type. If more time would have been given, these question together with the issues of ”top and bottom” would have been a natural continuation. REFERENCES 88 89 Books Articles / Reports Caldenby, C. (1990). Höga hus i Göteborg, Varför, var och hur sam inte minst om. Gothenburg: Göte- borg Stadsbyggnadskontor Cowan, R, International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers. (1974). Tall buildings and people?. Colchester, England: Benham and Company Gang, J. (2015). Three points of the residential high-rise: designing for social connectivity. CTBUH Research Paper. Retrieved from http:// global.ctbuh.org Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. Washington: Island Press Gehl, J. (2006). Life between buildings: using public space. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press Gehl, Thornton and Brack. (1976). The Interface between Public and Private territories in Residential Areas. North Melbourne: the Department of Architecture and Building MVRDV. (2012). The Vertical Village: Individual, Informal, Intense. Rotterdam : NAI Publishers Newman, O. (1976). Defensible spaces, Crime prevention trough urban design. New York: Collier Books Olsson, Sondén and Ohlander. (1997). Det lilla grannskapet; Gårdar, trapphus & socialt liv. Gothenburg: Centrum för byggnadskultur i västra Sverige Turkington, van Kempen and Wassenberg. (2004). High-rise housing in Europe: Current trends and future prospects. Delft: Delft University PressArtiklar/rapport Wood, E. (1961). Housing Design: a social theory. New York : Citizens’ Housing and Planning Council of New York Göteborg 2021. (2017). Bostad 2021. Retrieved from http://www.goteborg2021.com/ jubileumsprojekt/bostad2021/ Hyresgästföreningen. (2017). Ökat glapp mellan bostäder och behov. Retrieved from http:// hurvibor.se/lanssidor/goteborgsregionen/ bostader/laget-i-goteborg/ Larsson, M., Andersson, H. (2016). Detaljplan för Kontor vid Ullevigatan. Göteborg: Stadsbyggnadskontoret Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, samhällsavdelningen. (2016). 2016 Bostadsmarknadsanalys Västra Götalands län. Retrieved from http:// www.boverket.se/contentassets/ d8f4c265209e482889bc0720817542af/vastra- gotalands-lan-bma-2016.pdf Stadsbyggnadskontoret Göteborg. (2008). Stadsbyggnads kvaliteter Göteborg. Retrieved from https://goteborg.se/wps/wcm/connect/ f6c03c8f-10c6-41cd-85d7-bb72e2f8e50f/OPA_ stadsbyggnkvaliteter.pdf?MOD=AJPERES Statistiska centralbyrån. (2014). Så bor och lever Sverige. Retrieved from http://www.scb. se/Statistik/_Publikationer/LE0001_2014K01_ TI_02_A05TI1401.pdf Söderberg, F., Hallén, H., Seberink, M., Lööf, B., Blom, E. and Risberg, V. (2015). Höga hus i Mölndalsåns dalgång. Göteborg: Stadsbyggnadskontoret