“Although a home is an object, a part of the environment, the home is best conceived of as a kind of relationship between people and their environment It is an emotional relationship based and significant between the inhabitants and their places of residence. Concomitant with this distinction is the assumption that the concept of "housing problem" is not identical to that of "homelessness". be, and often is, resolved in a way that creates homelessness.” -Kimberly DoveyTo begin with, based on this quote, it would be worth defining the term “home” in a relatively more philosophical and metaphysical sense. It is often confused with the term "house", despite the fact that both are "two key aspects in the analysis of housing paths" as we could find in David Clapham's book, chapter "Houses and houses", we must make the distinction between "House" and "House ”. it is a special relationship with an individualized place, as an expression of the personality, family, belonging and life models of its inhabitants. While home is the place where we aim to develop all those aspects, but in itself it is just an object, without feelings being involved. In the house all intimacy is contained and hidden, starting from secrets, dreams, desires and future hopes, fears, rhythms, routines of daily life, ending with the very senses of security. The question of time is crucial, the house cannot be created immediately, while the house as a building – yes, it only depends on the construction work on site. “Home is not limited to connections with the past but extends to connections with the future.” The temporal dimension and continuity of the relationship between the occupants and their home depend to a large extent on the adaptation to the individual world of the inhabitants and on the dialogue with the building as a physical object. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay People buy and change homes and homes. Treating them as containers, wrappings for the staging of personal memory, sometimes also as a question of "commodity/pension/financial activity/income, with 'home' being the last priority", which then influences communities by not giving them no change to grow. This is why it is very important to introduce elements of relationship between the inhabitants and the home and incorporate their active participation in the construction process to create an emotional bond. This will result in the formation of a safe place of certainty and stability and will enable place identity to be acquired in the environment. Otherwise, the architectural container of the house is a series of hierarchical spaces and structures, with composition of lights and colors, while the house itself should be formed around behaviors, functions of objects and symbolism. “In addition to being a symbol of protection and order, the house can, in negative life situations, become a manifestation of human misery: of loneliness, rejection, exploitation and violence”. The relationship between the inhabitant and their home is highly dependent on the memories created within the shell and the home settings people have. Home can be about security, comfort and togetherness, as Pallasmaa mentioned in her work and, as we can see in the book “Crime and Punishment” by Dostojevski, it can be a symbol of violence, threat and homelessness. To prevent this type of negative emotion from appearing, it is crucial that the development of basic connections on various dimensions begins with all the excitement and positive attitude from the beginning of the home building process. In the context of the relationship between the inhabitant and the dwelling, it would be worth considering, what the role issame as an Architect in this process, where he is mostly not personally involved with either the house or the inhabitant?In general, architects do not just understand the feeling that people, relationships and space have. They are “taught to design homes and dwellings, not homes.” (1) They are mostly focused and more concerned with the “perfectly articulated architectural object” (1), rather than the actual living space for future inhabitants, thereby losing the element of empathy for the occupants. You might also notice that the kind of separation between the nature of the architect as a professional and as a human being is visible, especially when the role of the architect changes slightly. In the role of architects, they aspire to a meticulously articulated and temporally one-dimensional environment, while as inhabitants [themselves], [they] prefer a more layered, ambiguous and aesthetically less coherent environment; the instinctive inhabitant emerges through the role values ​​of the professional.”(2) As far as we follow the quote, it could be interpreted that the architect, depending on the position he finds himself in, would design differently. Pallasmaa also adds that the structure of the house itself “as a lived institution differs from the principles of architecture” (9). Architecture currently tends to behave as a profession that gradually detaches itself from its initial background, being rather a discipline, fully determined by its own rules and value systems, than an adequate service for people, becoming at the same time a form of art with a lack of understanding of its essence. As is evident, architecture is still linked to its practicality and the environmental conditions that constitute its foundation. However, another key to remember is that architecture should be “a direct expression of existence, of human presence in the world” (451) and when it does not meet those basic conditions it will not be able to influence emotions. Those primary feelings linked to our soul are building the image of the house, largely based on body language and feelings and strongly linked more to the act itself than to the object. Today's architecture seems to lose these aspects of life by transforming itself into pure manufacturing and commercial investment. In particular, it is taking away all the values ​​from homes and leaving them homeless even if they are inhabited. The homes, entirely built by developers, are completely removing people from the construction process. “This means we no longer have the intimate connection we once had with our homes.” From the survey conducted by the RIBA, participants preferred older properties as they noted the lack of living features offered by newer homes. “Old houses were perceived as more spacious because they had more space, more character and more potential for adaptation. Surely, if occupiers could be more actively involved in the construction of new homes, these could be better tailored to their needs from the start. and bespoke construction projects, usually followed by production into better quality, fit-for-purpose housing. Self-builders are prepared for the process which requires a lot of effort. Furthermore, finishing the house perfectly is in their interest, so that they can live in it for a long time creating a home with the right sense of space and community. For those who feel comfortable, custom building is a good way to realize your "home" values ​​by purchasing a ready-made shell and then filling it. George Clarke, in his show “George Clarke's Amazing Spaces,” answers with great emphasis the questions: “What makes space special?” The answer was “People”. Following this logic, to the questions: Who creates spaces, houses andcommunity? After all, who builds for communities? The answer would be the same. Why then should we insist so obstinately on the division of roles between architect and inhabitant if technically we should all have the right to build. The right path would be to allow designers and homeowners to bring back the “soul” and identity of homes. As mentioned above, the level of involvement significantly influences the further relationship of inhabitants with their “homes”. Based on further examples of self-built and tailor-made housing ideas, respectively, I would like to compare how resident involvement affects further connection in each of these situations. To give an illustration of what a self-build system is, let's look at the case of the Ashley Vale project, located on a 2.1-acre former scaffolding site, near the center of Bristol, UK. It was managed and funded by the Ashley Vale Action Group (AVAG), a group formed in 2000 by local residents of St. Werburghs, who wanted to prevent unwanted housing development on the site. To be taken seriously in presenting the alternative solution, they formed an action group that tried to influence the process. From a position of opposition to a new proposal to develop 35 fairly identical houses on a former industrial site, they began to develop housing for locals themselves, creating the opportunity for them to build their own home. Regarding the purchase of the site and the master plan negotiated by the administrators, the self-builders collectively financed the construction site the following year. They planned to develop 20 self-build plots with different designs suited to their family or individual needs, six housing association houses and leisure spaces. As the housing association originally involved was unable to progress the project, the community group, under the custom building scheme, developed a row of six self-finisher bungalows. Most self-built homes have been completed to very high environmental standards. An additional level has been added to the redundant office on the site, allowing for a further six apartments to be incorporated into the building, with a large multi-purpose community room, office and community art space, as previously planned. The project is a good example of the successful practice of a group of people with a common purpose taking control of the development of their neighborhood. Their involvement provided sustainable infrastructure and an environment suited to their needs. The scheme compromises the number of self-built individual housing projects, each reflecting the 'home values' needs of each individual occupant. The self-builders in the early stage already felt they were building a community together with their homes, forming a close bond by helping, advising and assisting each other. As a result of a demographic mix, starting from young families with children up to older residents and depending on the creativity and aspirations of the builders, the design of the houses varies to some extent despite the similar basic structure. Some of the self-builders had some technical knowledge, which they shared with those who had no construction experience. Here we could create a connection between the lack of architectural coherence and the result of the self-build housing strategy. The architecture of this project in most cases does not meet the rules and values ​​of architectural beauty, sometimes the aesthetic connection with the surrounding environment is missing. This was caused by the different approach to design by the manufacturers, in this case the future onesinhabitants and the architects themselves. This elicits a visible expanded focus on functional significance rather than architectural appearance. While independent and uninvolved architects or developers would be very likely to create series of envelopes without knowing the personal needs of future occupants. This was the problem that the local population wanted to avoid. While the project design may lack some architectural considerations, it still exemplifies the community spirit of belonging and place to live. Being adapted to the needs of individual inhabitants, it gives them the opportunity to own their own home with a "soul" applied by themselves in the process of creation. The architects, Clare Nash, visited the residents of Ashley Vale and had the chance to speak to them: “Interviewing the residents in Ashley Vale was a really rewarding experience because everyone was so enthusiastic about the development. People rated it very highly the community and everyone seemed to know everyone, even the tenants. Local people living in the surrounding areas also benefited from the increased home values, common green spaces and low fear of crime.” very comfortable homes and they all agreed that they like the look of the homes. Additionally, as a great means of collaboration during construction, residents reported "a high level of information sharing and collective help on all matters. projects". As Clare Nash followed one of the most interesting recent examples of Independent Group Custom Build in the UK, she summed up the project on her website as “a real inspiration and certainly a good example of how to tackle the housing crisis”. The project has had a major impact on housing strategies, thanks to: its commitment to green values, the way it was initiated, the variety of building typologies, the effort made to incorporate affordable housing and the extensive direct involvement of users with the help of the entire community. It would be worth highlighting that the increased involvement, in the case of the Ashly Vale project, clearly indicates the depth of involvement of future inhabitants in the process, which brings a number of satisfactory results, especially in terms of emotional basis, meaningful relationship between inhabitants and homes. We can assume with some accuracy that the emotional bond, which Professor Kimberly Dovey discusses in her essay “Home and Homelessness: Introduction”, will exist from the very beginning of the development of “home”. The strong feeling of space will be generated in the house from its origins and then continuously accumulate, evolving over the time of occupation. Architects in case of self-build investments, where the level of user involvement is high, would not play the main role. Would it therefore be a disadvantage, with a negative impact on the project? Not necessarily. Despite minor design failures, Shame still won “The Great Neighborhood Award,” which makes the case study even more valuable for successors. As we can see, this type of close collaboration between architect and user could mean a fully successful proposal in terms of customer satisfaction even if the role of the architect is reduced to a minimum. Moving on to the second example, illustrating the custom-built housing system, it would be worth starting with a question: what would happen if the proportion of involvement in the architect-user collaboration was changed? The New Islington project awarded along the Manchester Canal is a developer-led bespoke construction scheme. It was an effect of the collaboration of Urban architectsSplash and Shed KM Architects who specially designed the HoUSe modules on which the entire project is based. The proposal offered a clear but limited range of options and aimed to deliver 44 high quality finished homes, built in four sentences completed in 2016. Urban Splash is currently one of the most innovative developers in the UK. They introduced their way of dealing with the real estate crisis in an autonomous and personalized way. The HoUSe project developed townhouses with a modular system that allows future inhabitants to choose between different layouts, specifications and various sizes. The concept of modules offers the opportunity to customize the layout of spaces within the segment. Customers could order a two-story (1000 sq ft - 93 sq m) or three (1500 sq ft - 139.4 sq m) home, allowing for 1 to 5 bedrooms, with a balcony. They could also decide whether to place the building on the ground, front or back or even on the colors and furniture in the interior, satisfying the buyer in their needs and preferences. Once transported to the construction site, the prefabricated modules are lifted and fixed in position. Divider walls are added when layout decisions are made. The entire process of creating those houses took 20 weeks (of which 16 weeks were for the construction of the house and the delivery of the modules and 4 for the interior finishes). The project can be classified into categories such as developer-driven custom build as well as “standalone and custom”. By "custom" we mean delivery by the contractor or supply company, and by "self" we mean made by people. However, in this specific case, "fixed" by them is more adequate. People do not physically participate in the process; they only specify their preferences. This lesser presence of users in the direct process makes the role of the architect greater. We can see that this contribution influences the design itself. The overall design presents a high-level visual experience, being consistent within the entire scheme. It maintains the same appearance on the outside, being different on the inside. It shares an exterior with gray paneling, metal-clad pitched roofs and black-framed glass windows. The concept design, launched in 2014, attracted a large group of people, from roommates, individual investors, families and retirees and by 2015 it was already reserved. The entire HoUSe project represents an inspiring attitude that brings the importance of involving the inhabitants in the project. in a very different way than what we saw in the Ashley Vale project. It is also an effective alternative to the unwanted 'empty' shells offered by many bulky home builders, where construction costs are reasonable and offer the flexibility of 'architect designed properties'. Urban Splash chairman Tom Bloxham said their company had noticed a lack of diversity in new housing developments in UK cities. This would incrementally drive all the traditional, older and wealthier customers to suburban terraces instead of new properties. Regarding the project he said that: “HoUSe was born from our desire to create something for customers who want to live in well-designed homes and be in the city center. HoUSe is our way of offering them something in the city." they also happen to be homes that people are proud to live in." summed up ShedKM director Ian Killick. The entire company and the architects believe that their project offers a good model approach to residential development in cities and that it will constitute a great opposition to the housing shortage in the UK. The project offers lower prices comparable to city center apartments and houses.