Z E M C H 2 0 1 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e
738
Conclusions
The projects described above are characterized by an homogeneous methodological
approach that provide solutions able to be generalized. In all cases a system of modular
components has been defined. This system of modular components can be aggregated
in different ways in order to create a wide array of variations of living units and building
types. They can be combined in order to obtain a large number of spatial solutions and
dimensions and thus satisfy the housing needs of different users: students, the elderly,
the traditional family, ecc. The variety of possible combinations overcomes any concern
about monotony and at the same time allows control of volumetric and linguistic quality.
In addition, the HousingLab experiences presented herein constitutes an important
opportunity to test and verify a working method procedure to tackle the issue of house
design to be applied to many and diverse conditions.
References
ABALOS, I., 2000, ‘La buenavida.Visita guiada a lascasas de la modernidad’.
CALZOLARETTI, M., 2006, ‘Abitare in città. Questioni architettoniche, sociali, ambientali’.
CALZOLARETTI, M., 2009, ‘Molteplice Modulare Flessibile. Tre progetti per la Casa’.
CAVALLARI, L, and KROLL, L., 2001, ‘Ecologie Urbane’.
COLIN, D., 2005, ‘The prefabricated Home’, p. 35.
DIERNA, S., and ORLANDI, F., 2005 ‘Buone pratiche per il quartiere ecologico. Linee
guida di progettazione sostenibile nella città della trasformazione’.
EDWARDS, B., and TURRUNT, D., 2000, ‘Sustainable Housing, Principles and
PractICE’.
GAUSA, M., and, SALAZAR, J., 2002, ‘Housing + Singular Housing’.
PUGLIESE, R., 2005, ‘La casa sociale’.
SCANLON, K, and WHITEHEAD, C, 2007, ‘Social Housing in Europe’.
‘Housing & Flexibility’
,
1999 ‘A+t’ / monographic issue, n. 13.
PÉRIPHÉRIQUES, 1998, ‘36 propositions for a home’
