Stuthi Raajesh Mehta

AR3596

The aim is to look at how architects negotiate content in their own frameworks, shaping their design philosophies to address the shared goal of providing affordable housing schemes. Both architects, Aravena and Lacaton & Vassal, present distinct approaches to this goal. However, their interpretations of expansion differ significantly, reflecting their individual priorities and responses to the specific challenges of each project. 
Aravena’s ideologies bring about a set of doubts regarding the “half house” concept. Where does the ‘half house’ start, and where does it end? Once expanded, does it become a complete house, or does it remain as two halves in one house: one half designed, and one added? It feels like a never-ending loop, a bit like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg. This approach highlights the blurred line between what is designed and what is lived, capturing the open-ended, unfinished nature of Aravena’s work. 
 In contrast, Lacaton and Vassal’s philosophy is rooted in the transformation and reuse of existing structures. Their stance of “never demolish, never remove or replace, always add, transform, and reuse” is driven not only by economic or environmental concerns but by a belief in the latent value of existing buildings. Their approach does not compromise the form for content, nor does content need to be forced into a predetermined form. Transformation to them isn’t about erasing the past, it’s about building on what already exists and expanding on it. 
 The differing approaches provide insight into different ways as to how the concept of “expansion” operates within housing design: Aravena through incremental growth, and Lacaton & Vassal through adaptive re-use. As we continue to analyse these two projects, the question remains: to what extent does the architect’s philosophy shape the way expansion is integrated into housing design, and how do these philosophies influence the practical outcomes of these housing projects?