This thesis develops a new building type for Transitional Housing Programs (THPs) giving women and dependents a home and place of recovery from intimate partner abuse (IPA). User’s demands fuel the need for the development of this new “type”, with an expressed need for “community” posing the greatest challenge to the current architectural form. That form uses a “scattered-site” approach, simply disconnected apartment units. Development of a new form for THPs must balance the tension with the relationship of “open” shared space to secured spaces of anonymity. The reading(s) of “form” for both users and non-users becomes extremely significant here. The method in designing this new “type” is informed through post-occupancy feedback, design solutions of related building types (single mothers’ shelters, women’s crisis shelters) and insights generated by feminist architects and theorists.
THPs are young programs with only an average history of 8.9 years. They are still seeking both programmatic and architectural form. Historically, homeless shelters, convents, and women’s groups have provided sanctuary for women of IPA, but they remain limited by forms designed for other uses. “Inherited” forms conceal the program to provide anonymity, but they limit the functionality of both spaces and aesthetic. THPs, being unique from the crisis shelter, provide a long term residence to women offering a “home” in apartments in the community or a simple room in an emergency shelter (both without corresponding onsite services). The current space of the THP however is more independent and domicile, than institutional and temporary. A new form should seek to maintain those qualities while composing community.
Feminist architects and theorist add another voice to the development of the THP and here contribute two strains of thought to this discussion. One thread focuses on new ways of inhabiting (is socially oriented ) and another seeks a gender transgressive design (poetic). Fusing these methods builds both comfort and a “break” from old patterns to develop this new “type”. This challeng to the “hidden program” of a building’s current “social-physical” form drives innovation and seeks to meet user needs simultaneuosly. Feminist critiques also advocate for an empirical “ground-up” approach to empower users, supported by post-occupancy feedback. Residents desire independence, security, and a community of support. A programmatic redefinition of “home” and “crisis shelter”, shifting the boundaries of public and private spaces, and inclusion of self-authoring spaces developes a new form for transitional housing. The synthesis of these insights can provide a theoretical starting point to approach a new form, whether that “type” be hidden, ambiguous, or iconic (landmark).