Architect Luyanda Mpahlwa describes the process of creating and realising new housing solutions on Mitchells Plain, a development launched at this week’s Design Indaba.
Last year the Design Indaba invited architects to design 10 low cost houses in partnership with international architects for 10 families. Our firm, MMA Architects, was paired with British architect Will Aslop and after a process of consultation and selection we were allocated a family in Freedom Park on Mitchells Plain. The Jonker family stands to benefit from our design and in preparation we were issued with a DVD documentary of the family. In it their profiles and wishes were conveyed.
The initiative is part of the development of 490 units in Freedom Park by Niall Mellon Developers. The brief for each architect was to design a house within the limits of the government subsidy, which allows R50 000 per household for a 40m2 house.
At MMA we have attempted to find a design solution that could make a contribution to the broader national debate on housing delivery. In our view architects and urban planners in South Africa have not been involved in the roll-out of housing delivery as independent professionals. As a matter of fact, housing delivery, although driven by government, is largely being delivered by developers. It is therefore fair to say that the non-involvement of architects and urban planning professionals in the housing delivery process has been to the detriment of this process, and has led to the neglect of urban quality of life. We feel that the professional bodies involved in the built environment need to find creative ways to unlock the lack of involvement in this critical field of delivery in South Africa.
It was therefore important for MMA, in responding to the 10×10 housing project, to find solutions that also seek to address some of the challenges facing the country in the housing sector. These involve providing designs that offer dignified housing and quality of life in Freedom Park. We wish to address the quality of the low-cost house in general, while exploring the possibilities of sustainable and appropriate design.
There is obviously a need to achieve solutions that could increase the speed of housing delivery in general that would include innovative and alternative building methods.
Obviously this approach has gone beyond 10×10, so we have broadened the scope of the brief. It became clear early in the design process that the collaboration with Will Alsop was not going to achieve the desired results. The broader social considerations and the response to the aspirations of providing a house for a ‘real family”, which had specific needs, were not shared by the British architects. So MMA pursue the design on its own. In the exploration and research that followed we put together a Cape Town team of four, including myself as principal architect Luyanda Mpahlwa, Uli Mpahlwa, Sushma Patel and Kirsty Ronné, to workshop the design parameters. Ronné, the young architect and designer was then allocated to drive the design process forward.
The process
Our main challenge has been to reduce the costs of the 10×10 house. We recognise that conventional building methods and materials are not going to achieve results and alternative, more affordable building methods are required. This is difficult to achieve in South Africa, given the dominance of bricks and mortar as the ‘accepted” way of building.
Given the fact that the plot sizes (112m2) were predetermined, our team considered it necessary to maximise the usable area by minimising the building footprint as much as possible. A double-storey unit was proposed as the most land-use-efficient option for our design. This approach posed further challenges with respect to the 40m2 limitation of the brief.
A compact design evolved, but with architecturally pleasing aesthetics. We have intended to create a positive urban quality and street-edge layout. The building has been consciously located close to the street edge to maximise garden space at the back, and hard up on the lateral boundary to create an outside garden and play area for the family. This design resulted in the location of the living, kitchen/dining and wet areas in the ground floor area which had a positive interface with the external spaces and garden.
The sleeping quarters are accommodated in the upper floor, allowing for privacy and separation of potentially conflicting functions and uses. The main bedroom is located on the street edge and has an external terrace to provide relief from the tight internal spaces.
The children’s sleeping area is located toward the garden, providing four sleeping opportunities on double bunk beds. This design has resulted in a 54m2 house, which exceeds the 40m2 limitation. It is a great achievement that despite the extra 14m2 provided, the costs of the house remained within the accepted limits.
One of the key considerations for the design was that this would be a starter home, which could be developed as the family is able to afford it. The external upper terrace is the first opportunity for the extension to be realised. On the ground floor the house is positioned to allow for growth towards the back garden and still allow adequate space, including play space for the children within the safety of a private garden.
The materials
The main considerations for a cost- effective solution was to reduce the cost of building materials reduce the building time and consider involvement of the community in the building process. After research and consultation with a structural engineer and a quantity surveyor something called the ecobeam system was found to be appropriate for the 10×10 house.
This structural system, developed by Eco-Build Technologies in Cape Town, consists of a timber structural frame combined with a sand-bag construction as fill for the walls of the building. The timber beams have metal inlays to provide strength, improving the structural integrity of the system.
The sand bags provide excellent thermal control. One of the many qualities of this type of building technology is that the ecobeam system has tremendous thermal stability, tapping into the indigenous building techniques that made traditional buildings thermally sound and comfortable to live in. Anybody who has lived in a mud and wattle rondavel or old stone houses will know this effect. The occupants will be kept cool in summer and warm in winter.
The system also has excellent sound-absorbing properties that help to provide a measure of privacy in close-quarter living. The ecobeam system with sandbag infill is much heavier than brick construction and is therefore wind resistant. It also resists water penetration.
This unique system is suited to mass production and will provide excellent job opportunities and skills development for the local community of Freedom Park. It is locally produced, simple to construct and favours unskilled labour, especially the women in the community.
The construction is primarily manual, with little or no need for electricity in both the production of the ecobeams and in the construction process.
In a nutshell, the team was able to produce a 54m2 10×10 house for a maximum cost of R65 000. Although this cost exceeded the R50 000 budget, Design Indaba accepts that there is a factor of economies of scale. This factor was agreed to be approximately 15% as the costing of a 10×10 house was for a single unit.
A benefit for the Jonker family is that the R65 000 house includes frames for future extensions. Meanwhile these are part of the landscaping and the lattices can be used to grow creepers and shrubbery. In our view this kind of thinking needs to factored into the subsidised housing delivery process, promoting the concept of starter houses into which families can grow.