See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301604166

Architectural Theories Relevant to Renovations of Danish Social Housing

Conference Paper · May 2015

CITATIONS READS
2 1,465

1 author:

Terri Peters
Ryerson University
41 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Terri Peters on 24 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Architectural Theories Relevant to Renovations of Danish Social Housing

Terri Peters, PhD

Aarhus Architecture School
terri@terripeters.net

This paper frames some architectural challenges of renovating 1960s and 1970s social housing in
Denmark in connection to two relevant renovation and psychology theories. The paper is part of a
larger research project that proposes enlarging the scope of parameters for sustainable housing
relating to sustainable renovation of Modern housing in Denmark. This paper draws on the
architectural renovation theory of Plus, by French architects Lacaton, Vassal and Durot (2007) to
situate architectural renovation within a theoretical context and history of ideas: and discusses the
psychological-environmental principles of good living environments as defined by Ingrid Gehl (1971).
This paper uses these theories in connection to the contemporary example of Block 15 at
Varbergparken in Haderslev, Denmark, renovated by C.F. Møller in 2013. The paper finds that in
considering sustainable renovation to this kind of housing, the renovation first and foremost needs to
be conceptualized as an architectural project. In relation to ‘sustainable’ housing, a more expanded
definition should include human needs not only from technology-focused or energy-saving measures.
Future needs (drawing on concepts of Plus) and people-focused, psychological considerations
(relating to ‘Bo miljø’) are often lost in defining parameters for sustainable architectural renovations
but these should be integral considerations in producing architecture worth sustaining.

Architectural Challenges of Sustainable Building Renovation

Sustainable renovation is an important concept within the context of sustainable building but is poorly
conceptualized by architects (Peters 2015). The existing building stock needs to be further studied in
relation to sustainable initiatives because the focus is typically on new buildings, which make up only
a tiny percentage of housing. In the current social and political contexts of sustainable renovation in
Denmark, often the focus is on practical, quantitative, studies of buildings rather than people. For
example, in the sustainable renovation of Modern housing, often the focus is on repairing and
mitigating problems rather than enhancing and improving the particular building’s potentials. In
social housing renovations in Denmark, there are particular challenges to the way that these
renovations are funded, and often there appears not to be money for considering future needs and
future renovations. It is often overlooked that the challenges of designing or redesigning housing is a
part of a history of ideas, and that these ideas can be connected to architectural theory. Social
housing renovations in Denmark that were built in the 1960s and 1970s using industrialized methods
have specific issues that impact their architecture and sustainable ambitions, including the Danish
tenant democratic system and complex funding mechanisms (Peters 2015). There are also particular
issues relating to the existing housing, such as the unprecedented scale and distinctive architectural
features (Bundegaard 2009) that are proving difficult to renovate.

In Denmark, as in many places elsewhere, 1960s and 1970s housing estates were designed to be
sustainable in that they were designed to embody the idea of equality and social progress. In the
Danish context, this housing was social infrastructure that had significance as the architectural
manifestation of the Welfare State. This meant that the housing was designed to new minimum size
and safety standards, the buildings were separated from cars and industry, and there was an

188
emphasis on individual units having views and air from outside. These estates were designed to be
healthy environments that promoted hygiene and wellbeing. The housing was designed to be
permanent, not designed to be rebuilt and redesigned for every generation.

Currently, architects are undertaking the second major wave (Bech-Danielsen, Kirkeby and
Ginnerup, 2014) of renovations to these buildings. Increasingly all social housing in Denmark is
being renovated for building performance and social regeneration but these are difficult concepts
because these standards change. For example, when designing to meet environmental performance
targets for ”low energy”, this concept will change with each revision to the building regulations. A
housing association owning an apartment building that is renovated as “low energy”, could find that
soon after completion it only meets the minimum standards (Peters and Weyer 2015). This paper
also supports the findings of many researchers (Bech-Danielsen and Varming 1997, Jensen,
Kirkegaard, Pedersen 2009, and others) that architectural renovations for quality, lifecycle, and
resident experience are required, not merely energy renovations. A pressing question remains
regarding the positioning of these renovations in architectural theory: what theoretical and conceptual
architectural frameworks are relevant in this discussion of the sustainable renovation of this housing?

The Renovation Theory of Plus

The concept of Plus, defined by French architects Lacaton & Vassal (2007), is an additive renovation
theory. Plus is notable because it was developed by practicing architects who have successfully
implemented it on numerous projects and because it successfully conceptualizes architectural
renovation. The architects apply Plus to everyday Modern social housing and strive to create
architectural, beautiful designs that will be long lasting. Many architects undertake renovations to
social housing, in fact in Denmark this is an increasingly important area of work for architects, but
Lacaton & Vassal’s theories are unique because they attempt to link the meaning and importance of
what they are doing to a larger legacy of architectural theory. Their work is not guided by trying to
make the building look ‘new’, or be more efficient, or attract different people, rather they explicitly aim
to improve what is there at each site, improving and adding to the context rather than changing it.
They aim for renovations that are high quality, and that can be renovated again. Plus is concerned
with ‘never demolishing, subtracting, or replacing things, but of always adding, transforming, and
utilizing them’. The architects test this transformation philosophy in their radical renovations to 1960s
and 1970s suburban Parisian housing estates. For example in the Sainte-Nazaire-Petit Maroc
project, it was part of the brief that some flats would be demolished and some newly built. Using
Plus the architects limit the amount of demolition by radically reconfiguring the apartments. In the
Plus proposal, 27 flats are kept by being enlarged or improved and 18 new flats are placed on the
site. (Lacaton, Vassal, Druot, 2007 p.195)

“With an equivalent budget, the proposal without demolition enables one:

-to create 55 flats with an enlarged surface area (+40% in relation to standard surface areas)
-to keep the occupants in their flats or in the same location without having to move them during the
course of the building work
-to preserve the existing exterior spaces, which are adequate and of good quality
-to preserve the charm of the area and its identity”
(Lacaton, Vassal, Druot, 2007 p.209)

189
 The Plus Approach. The Plus approach advocated by French architects Lacaton & Vassal is pictured here showing
before and after concepts for the renovation of an apartment in Modern social housing high-rise in France. The two images
here illustrate their argument that by adding and extending they can create homes that are architecturally improved and
transformed. (Druot, Lacaton, Vassal 2007, p. 29)

The Plus approach is a way of improving and preserving aspects of the building’s identity. In the
case of Sainte-Nazaire-Petit Maroc, their approach was to design the housing to be more “Modern”
than the existing (Modern) buildings – this is evident in the examples they used of making punctured
openings into ribbon windows or transforming small windows into planes of glazing, therefore
bringing in more light and expressing openness. Their ways of describing their designs emphasized
delight, pleasure, simplicity, and generosity (Lacaton, Vassal and Druot 2007 p. 29-37) and these are
unusual and experiential concepts not always explicitly considered in renovations. In an essay about
their work, Ilka and Andreas Ruby argue the Plus theory can be described as “architectural tuning”
(Ruby and Ruby 2007 p.17). This concept of tuning - rather than entirely changing - an expression
and an architectural concept is an important one. It is a concept that is less extreme (and permanent)
than demolishing and rebuilding. In considering the lifecycle of a building, building on the past and
having a strategy that the future will build on the current design, means that things that are hard to
anticipate, such as advances in technology or changes in perceptions of health and wellbeing, can
still be productively planned for. The conceptual ideas of Plus are highly relevant to the
transformation of Modern social housing in Denmark. This is because of the theory’s architectural
and social focus, and also because of the holistic consideration of the qualitative potentials of the site
as well as quantitative values of cost, space or time. The architects frame Plus as a practical theory,
and in the example above of Sainte-Nazaire-Petit Maroc, they can also argue for it being a cost and
time saving strategy, citing floor areas and money saved. Plus will be discussed in relation to the
renovation at Varbergparken below.

Learning from “Bo-miljø”

When these housing projects were initially built in the 1960s and 1970s, there were many new
theories of housing design in the context of Modernism. In 1971, environmental psychologist Ingrid
Gehl authored a design guide “Bo-miljø” [Living Environment] about the basic needs that people
have in relation to their housing (Gehl 1971). She argued that the basic human housing needs
themselves are universal but people express them in different ways. The book identified

190
requirements that should be met for people to have a good living environment. The eight needs Gehl
identified can be translated as being: 1) the need for human contact, to see and meet others; 2) the
need for privacy; 3) the need for varied experiences; 4) the need for purposefulness; 5) the need for
play; 6) the need for structure and orientation within the environment; 7) the need for a sense of
ownership and identification with the community and environment; 8) and, the need for aesthetics
and beauty. Gehl illustrated these with photographic examples of how the spaces between buildings,
scale, and experiential qualities of spaces impact our psychological wellbeing. While not an
architectural text per se, it touched on many aspects of what we now call ‘social sustainability’ and is
relevant today when considering renovations to these buildings.

People and their living environments. The two photographs are from Gehl´s 1971 publication that focused on people,
scale and the urban environment. Most of her examples were of housing or spaces around housing. The photo on the left
(Gehl 1971 p.26) was a full-page photograph that illustrated the principle of the ‘Need for human contact’. On the right, the
photograph was part of a section on the particular needs of young children in a living environment (Gehl 1971, p.106).

A unique quality of the book was that it was illustrated almost entirely with photographs of people.
While today the text does not seem outdated, the photos that illustrate her arguments are obviously
from an earlier era. The photographs show fashions and technology from the late 1960s – today they
stand out. The photographs include 1960s cars, telephone booths, a picture of a man reading a
bulletin board to find out about local events, and some drawings of buildings as hand-drawn plans
and sketches rather than diagrams and renderings. Examined today, these representations support
one of her main findings: that the general basic needs of people are universal and change very
slowly, but the specifics of what people and how they manifest these desires is culturally specific and
is subject to changing trends. The book attempts to document and classify the basic human needs
for housing and to develop standards and rules. This idea of standardization of needs and
developing standards is certainly a Modern concept and one that is in the spirit of current
sustainability standards buildings. In the English translation section in the book, she explains what
she hopes to achieve with the book:

“Living Environment” pursues three objects:

191
 1. to provide a better basis for planning and evaluating living environments by giving an
account of some of the most important needs of psychological nature which should be satisfied
for man in his living environment,
2. to contribute towards an intensified discussion of living environments to-day, and
3. to give a survey and evaluation of the existing knowledge with regard to attitudes and
behaviour in living environments.
(Gehl 1971 p.166.)

Rather than considering residents as a homogenous group, the book specifically related how people
want and need different things at different times in their lives. For the eight categories of needs, she
explained how these relate to different age groups. She identified six age groups, referencing
psychologist Erik H Eriksson´s work about the division of human life into stages (Gehl p.171). She
wrote about the needs of the oldest group, age 66 and older (which today seems like a very large
range of ages with 66 too ‘young’ to be ‘old), and in this section articulated some of the concepts of
what we now call ‘aging in place’.

Human Behaviour. These three photographs seem like they could be taken at any time at almost any geographical
location. Left, a photograph shows women watching their children play and having social contact (Gehl 1971 p.32). The
photo in the center is part of her argument about the behaviour of children (page 98) and their age-specific needs. The
photograph on the right is part of a section on the needs of people 45-64 and the age-appropriate need for activities and
social contact (Gehl 1971, p.146).

Gehl focused on the connection between people and the urban environment; on the perceptions of
these buildings in the landscape and in the city; on the ways that people use the building´s façade
and its ground level spaces; and on the qualities of courtyards and their connections to the wider
community. It makes sense that many renovations to these building also focus on these aspects as
these are the priorities for people who live in the spaces. She focused on some interior
environments but few truly private ones. The book had no photographs of kitchens or bathrooms or
bedrooms, but there are living rooms, and communal areas like Laundromats. It is interesting to note
that now, when these buildings are renovated it is often the first priorities for tenants that kitchens
and bathrooms be modernized, then more space like balconies or storage spaces, and then better
windows and walls to reduce energy bills.

192
Housing for people? In the 1970s, there were many new housing theories and here are pictured two very different ways of
thinking about new designs for social housing. On the left, Gehl used this photograph as an example of urban ‘isolation’
(Gehl 1971 p.44). The building is not identified but it appears to be Høj Gladsaxe. On the right a layout from the 20 page
review of Høj Gladsaxe published in Arkitektur DK (Skriver 1969 p. 24-44) where almost every photo published in the article
taken from a bird´s view, admiring the heroic industrial forms in the landscape.

Gehl did not use the term ‘sustainable’ housing or ‘sustainable’ living environments. The good
environment examples she showed were not judged for their efficiency or cost or energy use. A
main finding of the book is that housing and the spaces around buildings and urban spaces should
not only satisfy in terms of large-scale organization, space metrics, or views, but should respond to
fundamental human needs. The photographs of old people in an urban setting were not only showing
housing designed for old people, the women sitting in the courtyard were not showing only family
needs. The photographs and descriptions of good living environments were those that can be used
in various ways by various people. Gehl’s “Bo-miljø” adds a new dimension to current discourses
about socially sustainable environments (Peters 2015).

Renovation of Block 15 at Varbergparken

Renovation of Block 15 at Varbergparken. The renovated 1970s social housing known as Block 15 at Varbergparken
Estate in Haderslev is pictured here after the major renovation by C.F. Møller in 2013. Photos taken in 2014 by Terri Peters.
See the dissertation by Peters 2015 and the paper by Peters and Weyer 2015 for more discussion of this renovation and its
sustainable aspirations.

The recent sustainable renovation of Block 15 at Varbergparken can be discussed in relation to the
Plus approach (Peters 2015). The renovation uses primarily additive approaches and the architects,

193
 C.F. Møller, aimed to enhance the site-specific potentials of the housing (Interview with Julian Weyer
2014). Relating to Plus, the most successful intervention was the addition of a new freestanding
structure to the building. The new self-supporting balcony structure on the south façade provides
new resident access to every apartment, so each apartment has a ‘front door’. These spaces are
shared by all the neighbours on each floor and so the outdoor hallway creates a small community of
neighbours. This structure relates to Gehl’s findings in many ways including her first point, ‘the need
for human contact to see and meet others’ and the point, ‘the need for a sense of ownership and
identification with the community and the environment’. The balcony structure also functions as an
environmental filter, providing a solar screen, shading the new facade. The housing is extended,
supplemented, and enlarged, by the new structure and the renovation offers additional amenities to
residents. This relates to the Plus concept but also to Gehl’s findings relating to social interaction and
her point ‘the need for privacy’ and also spatially with regard to her point relating to ‘the need for
varied experiences’. The balconies are outdoor, inhabitable, living spaces and they offer residents a
chance to sit in fresh air while still being at home.

The concept for the renovation was focus on architectural quality, to create a building that offered
better qualities of daylight, improved thermal performance and comfort, and had higher quality
finishes and fittings. This relates to Gehl’s point regarding the need for aesthetics and beauty. The
housing association realized that residents and potential residents expected modernised, ideally
open-plan kitchens and functional modern bathrooms so this was an important part of the renovation.
In the original design, the balconies, kitchens and bathrooms used to be considered servant spaces
that served the living functions but C.F. Møller found that they needed to bring the level of comfort
and quality up to that of market housing. In fact, they designed the apartments so that they could be
renovated if necessary at a later date from social housing into market housing without impacting the
new façade (Peters and Weyer 2015). This idea of flexibility and opportunities for remaking is part of
Plus. The layering and adding of functions and potentials has to be designed into the renovation.

The renovation of Block 15 was a complex architectural design project (see Peters 2015 for a longer
discussion), and only aspects have been highlighted here as they relate to Plus and Gehl’s theories.
The renovation can be discussed in consideration of all of the eight findings. The fourth point, ‘sense
of purposefulness’ is perhaps the most challenging basic need to improve in a housing renovation. At
Varbergparken, the architects additionally renovated an adjacent building from housing to a
Dementia care and health facility, which provided 300 new jobs. This new mix of uses could mean
that people find jobs, and potentially a sense of purpose, on the site. Another way that they
addressed concepts of purposefulness is in the low energy aspirations of the building. The
sustainable ambitions of the project could give residents a source or pride and purposefulness
because their actions are impacting the environment and larger community. While the original
ambitious intentions of solar panels and heat pumps were cut in the final stages due to budget, the
installation channels have been prepared for possible future upgrades (Peters and Weyer 2015).

Conclusions: Architectural Social Building Research

The massive scale of the regeneration taking place in Denmark to 1960s and 1970s social housing is
a major opportunity for reflection about living environments today. In “Bo-miljø”, Gehl aimed to
contribute to an intensified discussion of living environments and architects should take up this
challenge and add more voices and perspectives to the debate. Re-examining Gehl’s publication

194
today, it is evident that some of this knowledge has either been lost or it was not integrated well
enough into architectural education to begin with. At all levels, architects and stakeholders need to
be reminded that fundamentally housing is about people, and therefore design decisions should
reflect the human scale. There are too many drawings, documents, photographs, and discussions
about architecture and urban design that do not consider how people use spaces and how much
architecture can enhance our wellbeing.

In considering sustainable renovations to Danish social housing of this kind, architects should make
sure that they have considered each of Gehl´s eight criteria. In considering sustainability in this kind
of housing renovation, the needs of the residents should be at the forefront. Instead of designing for
technological and performance targets, more emphasis should be placed on the basic, underlying
psychological needs of people and our relationship to one another. Gehl’s book explicitly stated what
these needs are, but they are not typical resources to consult in evaluating a building design or
planning a housing renovation. This book was published as part of the SBi series, an important
series of Danish research publications used as primary materials in many contemporary studies.
This particular volume deserves some renewed attention in relation to housing and architectural
renovation, as Gehl takes a very important position on environmental wellbeing. There have been
many of the conversations that Gehl hoped for: the ‘intensified discussions about of living
environments today’, but few of the discussions have been architects considering environmental
psychology in housing renovations. Currently it is not common to use the terms and imagery she
uses in a discussion of social-sustainable environments, which is somewhat surprising. This book
would be even more relevant now had Gehl used more scientific, peer-reviewed studies and
references relating to psychology to develop an evidence-based argument for the impact of design
on human behaviour and wellness. This could be an area for future work, and it would address the
current gap in architectural knowledge in this area. Having more access to such documents would
allow architects, engineers, planners and others in the industry to be able to draw on and use this
important psychological work in communicating the importance of these concepts. Framing some of
Gehl’s ideas more formally as research would give architects some ‘proof’ or evidence for the power
of architecture and this could be used in the renovations. It would also have been interesting if she
had examined in the living environment in terms of materials and climatic concerns, but this was not
the focus of her study.

The philosophical concepts underlying Plus yield new ways of designing better renovations to
housing, especially 1970s social housing which often has little obvious heritage value. The focus on
enhancing, extending, adding and emphasizing, reveals a way of thinking about performance and
quality that measures by potential not arbitrary absolute measures. The integrated approach of Plus
offers holistic benefits and relies on collaboration. In the context of sustainable renovation to Danish
social housing, there is a need for further research into how these renovations improve people’s
lives. There needs to be more architecturally relevant research on how people actually perceive their
living environments and how modifications to living environments change people´s behaviour. This
means surveying residents, and analyzing the results. Often the work that is produced in relation to
human needs and behaviour is not shared with designers. We need to develop mechanisms by
which environmental psychological research can be disseminated in simple terms to practicing
architects. Housing regulations such as building codes, municipal plans, and environmental
performance standards need to be rethought from a lifecycle and human behaviour perspective.
Renovations theories such as Plus and human-centered perspectives such as Gehl’s offer a starting

195
 point but there remains much work to be done to integrate this knowledge into the architectural
discipline.

References:

Bech-Danielsen, C. & Varming, M. (1997) Smukkere renoveringer. Arkitektonisk kvalitet ved

renovering af nyere boligområder. SBi-byplanlægning 75 [More beautiful renovations. Architectural
quality in renovation of newer residential areas. SBi-planning 75]. Hørsholm: Statens
Byggeforskningsinstitut.

Bech-Danielsen, C., Kirkeby, I. M. & Ginnerup, S. 2014 Renovering af almene bebyggelser:

Evaluering af fysiske indsatser gennemført i perioden 2011-2013 [Renovation of public buildings:
Evaluation of physical interventions carried out between 2011-2013]. København: SBI forlag.

Bundegaard C. 2009. “Framing Fragmentation: The Architect as a Master of Montage”. In Changing

Roles; New Roles, New Challenges – CIB Proceedings, edited by Hans Wamelink, Matthijs Prins
and Rob Geradts: 315-323.

Gehl, I. (1971) Bo-miljø [Living Environment]. SBI 71. København: Statens Byggeforskningsinstititut.

Interview with Julian Weyer of C.F. Møller. 3 June 2014, at C.F. Møller Offices, Aarhus, Denmark.

Jensen, L, Kirkegaard O, Pedersen D.O., 1999. Beboerdemokrati og forvaltning I den almene

boligsektor: Idealer og praksis SBI-Rapport 322 [Tenants' Democracy and Governance in the Social
Housing Sector: Ideals and Practices SBI Report 322]. Hørsholm: Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut.

Lacaton, A., Vassal, J-P.,& Druot, F. (2007) Plus: Large Scale Housing Development: An Exceptional
Case. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.

Peters T. Architectural Strategies of Transformation to Modern Housing: Qualitative Parameters for

Analysis of Sustainability in 1960s and 1970s Multi-Story, Prefabricated Concrete Housing in
Denmark. PhD Dissertation, (Aarhus: Arkitektskolen Aarhus, May 2015)

Peters T, Weyer, J. “Architectural Design for Low Energy Housing; Experiences from Two Low
Recent Affordable Housing Projects in Denmark ” in Sustainable Cities and Buildings: 7th Passive
House Norden Conference in Copenhagen, Passive House Norden, August 20-21 2015. (In Press)

Ruby, I. & Ruby, A. (2007) Reclaiming Modernism. In: Lacaton, A., Vassal, J-P., Druot, F., Plus
Large Scale Housing Development: An Exceptional Case, Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili. pp.11-
25.

Skriver, P.E. (1969) Høj Gladsaxe. Arkitekten (1).

196

View publication stats