This chapter discusses the notion of ‘Open Building’ through its conceptualisations and implementations in the Netherlands since the 1960s until today. It focuses on the place of dwellers’ agency in the development of residential open buildings to investigate the potential of users’ empowerment. The ‘Open Building’ approach synthesises the principles of Habraken’s theory of ‘Support’ and ‘Infill’ developed as an alternative to post-war mass housing. Through innovations in decision-making and construction technology it promotes user participation and enables flexibility and change. The chapter discusses and compares the cases of Molenvliet, an early Open Building project for the social rental sector, and Superlofts, a series of contemporary ones where the architect and the residents have also become developers. It emphasises the political, and socio-economic context of the Open Building movement and how it has impacted the ability to meet its aims. Although its capacity to disrupt the housing system has remained limited it has expanded housing possibilities in the Netherlands. @en

Exhibition at the London Design Biennale 2021, Somersent House, London, 1-27 June 2021. The exhbition explores the strategies, tactics, techniques and negotiations that inhabitants of Bimanagar in Ahmedabad have used to transform their dwellings and develop their community over the last 30 years. @en

This presentation discusses the notion of ‘Open Building’ through its conceptualizations and implementations in the Netherlands since the 1960s until today. It focuses on the place of dwellers’ agency in the development of residential open buildings to investigate the potential of users’ empowerment. The term ‘Open Building’ was popularised by Age van Randen, professor of Building Technology at TU Delft’s Faculty of Architecture in the 1980s. It synthesised the principles developed in 1961 by John Habraken in his theory of ‘Supports’ (Dragers) and is based on the duality of structure and infill. In the post-war context of consumerism and industrialization in construction, Habraken proposed a radical transformation of the mass housing building industry that aimed at public participation and freedom of choice for the user. Supports, durable and collective, were to be delivered by the industry, whereas infill, changeable and individual, could be tailored by the inhabitants. The SAR-group (Architects’ Research Foundation) further developed these ideas, while others proposed variations, among them Jaap Bakema in Eindhoven (City plan, and growing houses) and Hertzberger in Delft (Diagoon houses). Even though the paradigm shift as sought by Habraken didn’t happen, there has been a consistent experimentation with Open Building concepts, with more intense production triggered by the crisis of 2008. Bottom-up initiatives, housing corporations and private developers alike have tested new arrangements between clients, builders, architects and municipalities to make their projects financially viable, while searching for new housing products. Projects such as Solids (Fretton, Eberle), Superlofts (Koehler), or Patch22 (Frantzen) present a range of different ownership models and typological configurations on the promise of supporting new ways of life and fostering sustainability. For the first time, the notion of Open Building is carried forward by practice rather than theory. However, these contemporary implementations do not seem to achieve the social agenda that originated the term; they have to operate within a context of real estate speculation and gentrification that exclude classes of dwellers instead of empowering them. @en

The article discusses the central role that housing is playing during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in the context of Spain. First, it argues that, during the lockdown, housing has changed from being regarded a right to almost a duty. It questions the implications of such renewed consideration in terms of housing conditions, policy, and design. Secondly, the article compares the role of housing in the COVID-19 crisis with the one it played in the financial crises of 2008. It argues that a significant difference is that in 2020, citizens are not blamed for the housing situation. Finally, the article concludes that there is a window of opportunity so that housing can become part of the solution rather than the problem. It defends that the debate on housing should focus on how we want housing to be instead of speculating on how it will be.@en