Barcelona Metropolis

The design of a substantial amount of housing is based on an obsolete concept that organises space according to the nuclear family’s needs. Design criteria must be adapted to eradicate hierarchical roles in spaces, to adapt them to everyday tasks and to accommodate certain groups, such as the elderly.

The title of this article, inspired by a line from Gertrude Stein’s poem “Sacred Emily”, may seem redundant, but it certainly isn’t. Housing must enable our lives and our personal and social development and, in spatial terms, it must provide the capacity to accommodate the diversity of lives and groups living together. This capacity is fundamentally determined by two scales: the urban or neighbourhood scale and the architectural scale, which is confirmed in the distribution or types of residential units.

Urban quality of life is a fundamental condition for housing to serve as adequate spaces for everyday life, which is achieved beyond the home interior. It spills over and is complemented in urban settings and it is therefore essential that housing be located in mixed and nearby neighbourhoods. The residential buildings themselves have to contribute to the generation of active neighbourhoods, with ground floors bursting with life. To this end, shops and facilities, non-residential activities that guarantee vibrancy, at all hours of the day, ought to be located on the ground floor. Vitality that leads to informal security in the public space, which is not provided by a security force, but by the people who come and go. The diversity of activities also allows us to meet daily needs within walking distance, which, with an adequate and accessible public space, results in the autonomy of dependent persons.

Space is not neutral

On the architectural scale, we take thermal comfort and efficient energy use for granted in contemporary buildings; countless technical standards prescribe these requirements. However, there are issues that may be less obvious: space is not neutral and therefore the way it is divided, organised and hierarchically structured directly influences the development of relationships and the people who inhabit it.

People experience different cohabitation scenarios and needs, and not all cohabiting groups are formed and organised in the same manner. However, the basic rules of spatial distribution, organisation and hierarchy with which our dwellings are planned date back to the late 1970s. A great deal has changed since then: we are a more diverse, more egalitarian and longer-living society.

Before I continue with the criteria or conditions that more adequate housing should meet, let me point out that the biggest problem concerning the quality of housing lies in the fact that 87% of the building stock is pre-1980s, before the introduction of the first energy regulations, and only 10% of that stock has been fully refurbished. These homes were built for a society that was organised and lived in a very different way to how we do today. Therefore, beyond determining the conditions or challenges of new housing, the problem lies in existing housing, where energy adaptation, spatial reorganisation and accessibility are very costly.

Equality, visibility and accessibility

Traditional collective housing has been built with hierarchical spaces and has not taken into account the fact that it is an invisible and essential workspace. It is in housing that most caregiving and life-sustaining tasks are carried out. Contemporary housing therefore has three fundamental principles: equality, visibility and accessibility. For the first, hierarchy-free spaces should be promoted, such as bedrooms of equal size and no private bathrooms. This not only encourages different cohabitation groups to make this space their home, but also prevents the architecture from creating a patriarchal hierarchy in the family. Furthermore, by not having a private bathroom off a bedroom, the use of resources and space is more efficient. Often, separate elements would allow concurrent uses without the need to duplicate spaces.

With regard to visibility, like for equality, the everyday tasks carried out in the home should be revisited and a necessary and high-quality space should be designed accordingly. If we start with the kitchen, it should have a more central and visible place, facilitating the execution of shared chores. Minimal kitchens, according to the regulations, result in a long, narrow aisle for solitary and isolated work. Instead, they should be designed in such a way that they can be integrated into the living and dining area. It is not a case of having the kitchen permanently visible, but rather of opening it up and creating a connection to other rooms when tasks are being carried out, and then separating it again, if desired.

We have become accustomed to the laundry room being an extension of the kitchen, but this should not be the case. Firstly, because of the way daily chores work: laundry is not connected to the kitchen, but to bedrooms and bathrooms. Secondly, because the laundry room interferes with the kitchen’s ventilation and lighting, while the laundry soaks up the smells. In an effort to eliminate these spaces, which are essential for the household to run smoothly, I have even heard people defend their removal on the grounds that a washing machine and a tumble dryer are sufficient. This is a big mistake, which stems from never having carried out these chores, from not knowing that not all types of garments can be put in the dryer and that this appliance consumes a huge amount of energy and ruins clothes. Besides, the many hours of sunshine that we enjoy (and are beginning to feel the effects of) do not make this expense unnecessary. Forgive this anecdote, but it illustrates the lack of knowledge with which homes are often designed, which even today are still gendered spaces, unequal in terms of services and obligations for female and male genders[1].