Hybrid Dwelling

Authors’ Comment

Introductory note: I believe it is important to clarify, especially given the nature of this year’s theme, that no artificial intelligence was used in any form for this project. At that time, AI was more likely to hinder the process than to provide any real assistance, and I was strongly opposed to this kind of creative surrender.

The project proposes an understanding of the importance of the symbiosis between dwelling and public space within the context of collective housing developments. Following the analysis, it can be stated that these two elements are interconnected and mutually dependent.

The functional and historical context of Berzei Street calls for a hybrid approach to the architectural program. The existing functional eclecticism makes it impossible to occupy a relatively large plot exclusively with housing. This entire work is based on understanding the relationship between public and private (outside and inside), so that the project may find its solution through phenomenology, perception, history, program, precedents, and intuition.

At the core of the project lies the dialogue between “inside” and “outside.” The interplay of boundaries represents an architectural challenge of spatial organization, approached through buffer spaces (“third spaces”). Corridors, access galleries, staircases, and inner courtyards (patios) all become design tools. Each has a symbolic quality and can be perceived either as a “boundary” or as a “transition.”

Contemporary housing issues highlight the lack of communities formed around the dwelling. As a result, shared spaces within residential environments are sometimes abandoned due to the lack of interaction between neighbours. Therefore, a hybrid collective housing model that integrates functions with public or communal qualities creates opportunities for establishing new connections within a community. Since this aspect is considered from the design stage onwards, it helps prevent the lack of coherence that may occur in common spaces when the need for community takes precedence over the aesthetic integrity of the building. Furthermore, considering the negative effects associated with traffic and the benefits of working from home, providing shared workspaces in close proximity to dwellings offers a way of improving the quality of life of residents within a hybrid collective housing development.

Thus, the project finds its solution through an urban garden open to the city, in which shared spaces, services, public functions, and dwellings come together and mutually support one another. The site consequently becomes a park or a communal residential garden appropriated by its inhabitants. The dwellings are placed against this green background, open to the city. Between these two elements lies a “plinth,” a buffer space that articulates the relationship between “inside” and “outside.” It is defined by functions essential to everyday living, such as cafés, pastry shops, bakeries, artisanal shops, and bookshops, which are important both for the city and for its residents.

In conclusion, by acknowledging architectural, social, environmental, psychological, and anthropological aspects, we can create spaces that respond appropriately to the needs of their inhabitants. Once it is understood that creating housing is more of a cultural and social challenge than a technical one, the architecture of the home can respond to the needs of its inhabitants rather than necessarily conforming to prevailing trends. In housing design, emphasis should therefore be placed on the substance of the project, detached from “isms” or doctrines and focused, first and foremost, on the needs of the inhabitants. Peter Eisenman stated: “No matter how many architecturally syntactic correct propositions we make, they may contain no poetry at all.”