The main issue in this project is whether you can design a mixed-use residential building where the need for private space is hitched in a positive way to the communal component; and whether this can create a true sense of ownership, collectivity and responsibility. One of the key premises when working up the concept was that the communal spaces in the design must have important duties to perform and be modelled in such a way as to benefit the individual dwellings. Not that the intention is to patronize residents with excessive visual form and coerce them into a state of collectivity. They should be able to opt for seclusion at all times. The aim, finally, is to design something that can be built rather than just a theoretical concept.

BIGhouse-littleHOUSE steps off from the difference in surface area between the smallest possible fully-fledged dwelling and a comparable dwelling of average surface area. This difference is then assigned to the communal area. So this shared zone belongs to everyone in a very literal sense. The more little dwellings the residential building contains, the greater the communal area and the more opportunities it presents. The private component is the 'littleHOUSE', which consists of 115 private dwellings, the smallest type having a surface area of 50 m2 and the largest 150 m2. These 115 units have a communal area, the 'BIGhouse', of some 6000 m2 which all residents can make use of. This means that residents of the smallest type of dwelling have more than 6050 m2 at their disposal. The BIGhouse is made up of seven stacked floors each with a theme (garage, work, study, dining, living, bath and rest). Dwellings forming part of a theme floor respond to it in their own way. For example, a garage dwelling is basically a dwelling you can drive your car through to park in the collective garage cum informal workshop. The dining room dwelling only has a small dining room but this can be temporarily enlarged by opening up the wall of the communal dining space.

The building is modelled in such a way that the distinction between private and shared is at all times visible both inside and out through the difference in scale and proportions. The greater scale and larger glass panels and areas of concrete stress the collective nature of one part. The more detailed small scale by contrast indicates that this is the private domain. All dwellings are reached both privately and from the common route.

With its great spatial variety and the transitions between private and communal domains, the building succeeds in being shared and individual in equal measure. The themes of the floors and the variation in size of the dwellings will attract different types of residents. These will be confronted with each other's lifestyles in a positive way thanks to the spread and the appeal of these shared amenities.

Place of education: AvB Groningen | Specialization: architecture | Tutors: Laurens Jan ten Kate, Clemens Bernardt