Samoan Hybrid State Housing

1.0 - Introduction:

When the largest influx of Samoan migration to New Zealand began in the 1960s, immediate cultural differences were encountered. Housing was created for the growing population, but the cultures of these immigrants was not considered. In 2006 a housing proposal was designed by Stapleton Elliot to assimilate the needs of European families and Samoan families into a low income, hybrid housing design (Milbank, p.28). New Zealand was strongly motivated to create this design after years of housing that did not suit the rising Samoan population. This design addresses problems that are commonly noted in hybrid housing, but most likely, still has improvements to be made.

2.0 - Case Study:

Proposed by architectural group Stapleton Elliot (Austin & Milbank, p.764), is a low income housing design for suburban Auckland to suit the needs of Samoan immigrants, needs that have otherwise been ignored. Milbank describes the idea behind the project:

This project is concerned with designing a framework that would allow Samoans to operate in their traditional living patterns yet still exist within the fabric of suburban Auckland (p.756).

The project considers many aspects of traditional Samoan building such as the fale and the malae, and has incorporated them into a design that mimics aspects of the villages in Samoa and so increases the comfort of Samoan families in urban Auckland.

The site for this proposal is set in Mangere, Auckland, an area that is already predominantly housing a Polynesian population (Austin & Milbank, p.164). This housing development represents a shift in New Zealand’s perception of Polynesian immigrants displaying compassion for their displacement and considering their culture within the design.

Samoans have faced many difficulties moving from an island life to the cityscape of Auckland, mostly from the radical change in culture. These difficulties are further described in section 6.0 – ‘The Motivation’.

3.0 – Contrasting Cultures.

3.1 – Differences in Housing.

The traditional housing of Samoan families is the fale, these generally consist of a circular shaped roof made of a thatch of lau leaves. This roof is then supported by structural columns, with no structural walls. This design also includes blinds made of woven palm leaves that are used for added protection during winds and strong rain, rather than for privacy (May, p.168). The basic design is displayed in Figure One

Fig1: Image of Traditional Samoan Fale. (Milbank, p.21).

The main difference between a Samoan home and a Western home is the proximity of different areas. A Samoa fale is used to hold possessions and for sleep, while kitchen areas and hygiene areas are set away from the fale and are communal with the rest of the village (Muller, p.57). In a Western home, the space between the fale and the fale tuka (kitchen) would be considered the hallway. Western homes are simply pressed closer together due to the traditional need for privacy that is viewed in Western societies. The communal living in Samoan villages also allow more room within each family’s fale and so more room for extended family and guests (May, p.168). This contrasts with western homes which have less room and are typically designed to house less people.

The design of Samoan housing focuses on the community of a village, rather than the privacy of a family as this is not an issue considered by Samoan families. For Samoan families their family fale was far more than a machine for living, it was also a place of celebration with weddings and funerals commonly being held within the fale (‘Orama Nui Housing Strategy for Pacific People’). Samoan families have lived this way for generations and so, to make a transition to the enclosure of state housing in New Zealand was a significant leap.

3.2 – Differences in Urban Layout.

In Samoan villages the idea behind the urban layout focuses on open space. The villages are generally centred around the malae, as displayed in Figure Two, which is used recreationally as well as for ceremonial purposes (Cayford, p.2). The placement of fales is based on the owners rank within the village, the more important housing circling the malae with the rest of the housing stretching out form this point. Surrounding the fales is the farming land of the village. The separate villages are all modelled similarly and each will generally hold a strong connection to other surrounding villages. The focus within these villages is on community, most will contain no boundary fencing as the use of spaces fluctuates depending on the need. Samoan architecture has gained some Western elements in the use of brick and corrugated iron (Cayford, p.5), but the layout of the housing surrounding the malae has remained a key part of Samoan culture

Fig2: Traditional Spatial Layout of Samoan Village. (Austin and Milbank, p.760).

Fig3: Birdseye View of Otara, Auckland Housing Layout. (Image sourced from Google Maps).

Housing layout in New Zealand is very different from this as the design of western housing developments focuses on different princi­ples. This is primarily seen in the development of State Housing, which is designed for need and nothing else. The layout of these houses are only dictated by the amount of space given and the proposed layout of the roads surrounding these houses. The housing also focus on privacy with high fences surrounding each property.

An example of the vastly different results state housing can result in is shown by the layout of the Otara development, designed by Housing New Zealand, follows completely different ideals, namely privacy over community and access to roads rather than to community spaces. This is a layout, pictured in Figure Three, is focused on space saving and efficiency rather than considering the atmosphere that would be generated for inhabitants. This vast difference in community increased the feelings of displacement that affected Samoan immigrants and created the need for a new hybrid design that could meet their wants.

4.0 – Stapleton Elliott’s Housing Design.

Assimilating two very different cultures was no easy task and so required many attempts, most of which did not have the expected results. The most recently designed housing by Design Group Stapleton Elliot attempted to remedy mistakes made in the past to finally, successfully incorporate Samoan culture into New Zealand’s multicultural society.

4.1 – Incorporation of Samoan Culture:

Low income housing is usually built in a manner to be as space efficient as possible, this was not a process followed by Design Group Stapleton Elliot. The new design included the Samoan tradition of separating living spaces into independent blocks. This meant the separation of the family living dwelling, the kitchen and the bathrooms (Austin & Milbank, p.765). Their design also added areas that state housing does not generally have. This included a communal kitchen area where large groups could come together to cook for events.

4.2 – Adaptation to New Zealand:

The family dwellings were laid out in a typical western fashion so as not to be seen as purely for Samoan immigrants (Milbank, p.25). As well as the communal kitchens, individual kitchens were provided within each family dwelling (Austin & Milbank, p.766). This allowed for the privacy that some residents may prefer. The materiality of the housing was another clear difference from Samoan culture. Although this housing allowed for increased transparency to mimic fales, the open walls was not a feature that could be included. This was due to the vast difference between climate in New Zealand and in Samoa. In New Zealand, structure such as brick and weatherboards were necessary for the unpredictable climate. The housing also accommodated parking, which represented a strong western influence (Austin & Milbank, p.766). Driveways encircling the malae also displayed western culture influence as driving is far more common in New Zealand than in Samoa.

4.3 - Hybrid Development:

It is standard for stand-alone housing in New Zealand to include a garden of some size. The inclusion of a garden in the Stapleton Elliott housing proposal was a normal action to take, however these gardens included influence from Samoan traditions. The boundaries between these gardens were not apparent. This was to allow communication with neighbours, a boundary can be set up if it is decided or the spaces can be adjoined if necessary (Austin & Milbank, p.766). The idea behind this design is described by Austin and Milbank:

"Through consultation and negotiation with neighbours and within the extended family unit. Each group can be reconfigured to accommodate different family occasions: a death in the family, a large informal gathering such as Christmas or the event of a special guest" (p.766).

Another element of the homes that displayed a hybrid design was the treatment of privacy. The family dwelling areas were designed to have a higher level of transparency than typical westernised homes, this was to increase contact with neighbouring families. This design mimicked the Samoan culture of having very little privacy between individual dwellings (Austin & Milbank, p.766). Although higher levels of transparency were designed between houses, there was more privacy than that of a traditional fale. This showed an adaptation to New Zealand culture, where privacy is often preferred.

New Zealand’s view on privacy against Samoan’s view is a drastic difference, meaning that this element of the housing would always be a difficult part to adapt to all inhabitant’s needs. The problem with this design is that, by including privacy, it is attempting to attract European inhabitants. However, in doing so, it may disinterest Samoan immigrants who are not comfortable with this level of enclosure.

5.0 – Stapleton Elliott’s Urban Design Layout

5.1 - Incorporation of Samoan Culture.

As has been described, a key aspect of this housing proposal was the inclusion of Samoan traditions by separating the buildings by function. This idea is continued into the layout of the housing by following traditional Samoan spatial practises (Austin & Milbank, p.759). In the Mangere proposal, the houses are laid out surrounding a central communal area, a malae. The family dwellings encircle this space, with the kitchens behind and then bathroom areas at the rear (Austin & Milbank, pg.765). This layout is displayed below, in Figure Four.

Fig4: Housing Layout proposal. (Austin & Milbank, p.764).

5.2 – Adaptation to New Zealand:

The main consideration that had to be made when laying out these houses was that the site offered far less space than a Samoan site would. This meant that dwellings did have to be closer than they would be in Samoa, to use the space more efficiently as is commonly seen in New Zealand.

5.3 - Hybrid Development: The centre communal area in Stapleton’s design is inspired by the centred Malae in Samoa. In Samoa this space is viewed as a centre to the community where traditional events can take place (Rodman, p.181). Within New Zealand this space could take on many more roles as a standard park. The idea of a park within a community area is not a new one, it can be seen in such areas where town houses enclose a park. The difference for this space is that is looked in on by the surrounding houses, but is not closed off to the public. This means the space can be used for traditional Samoan events or everyday New Zealand activities without any segregation from people outside of the community.

6.0 –Motivation:

The motivation for the development of this state housing stemmed from two main reasons. The first was purely to house the growing population for Auckland as well as New Zealand. Large groups of Polynesian families have been migrating to New Zealand since the 1800s, but the largest wave occurred in the 1960s where Samoan families were drawn to unskilled and semi-skilled jobs being offered in the NZ economy (Cayford, p.9). This meant that the first constructions of state housing was built because of need.

A core issue found with the movement to state housing was that Samoan families are used to living with their extended family. This is seen in the results from a New Zealand census, which gathered the following information.

"In 2001 the average occupancy for [Polynesian] homes was 4.6, while the national average was 2.7" (Cayford, p.10).

This was not a tradition acknowledged in the design of the state housing. The result of this was one of two scenarios. Either the house was overcrowded with extended families as larger houses were unaffordable, which led to poor living conditions as well as an increase in sickness (Muller, p.33). The other result was that families were separated (Macpherson, p.159) which caused further loss of their community traditions. This lack of space was a key factor in the Samoan migrants need for adaptation concerning their housing situations in New Zealand.

A temporary solution was found in the form of a garage being added to properties. The process of adding a garage to an existing building was far easier than adding the equivalent area as a housing addition. Many garage companies offered a joint deal of both the garage itself as well as arrangements over loans and any legal obligations (Macpherson, p.160).

This solution housed many problems one of which being that Samoan families in rental properties were not legally allowed to build up their properties and therefore missed out on this ‘renovation’. In her paper ‘Polynesian Domestic Archetypes in Auckland’ Milbank describes how the use of the garage, indicated that a change was needed:

"While this practice is common in many Pacific Island homes in Auckland it should be seen as a “make do” solution which occurs when housing design is inadequate for the ritualistic needs of the family" (p.29).

The second reason stems from these problems that occurred after the first housing developments. The housing had not been designed to suit the needs of the families that were moving into them and the low income of these immigrating families did not allow them much choice. These families became segregated within Auckland and were unable to continue their traditions. This led to the motivation to design such housing as the Stapleton design described in this paper. This type of housing was designed because of want.

7.0 – Assimilation Attempts:

A problem that is faced by developers of this hybrid housing is the trials of assimilating two very different cultures. When Samoan families first began immigrating to New Zealand, the process of ‘pepper potting’ was created by the New Zealand Government to disperse Samoan families throughout New Zealand (Cayford, p.1). This plan failed miserably due to Pakeha families moving away from areas that were predominantly Polynesian.

It was easier for Polynesian groups to replicate their activities from Samoa when living in an area with families of a similar culture. This meant they could encourage communal activities and gatherings. The problem with this is that the cultural group became segregated from other areas of the city and so essentially did not integrate at all (Macpherson, p.163). This is a significant problem which has been addressed in this paper, where the housing design by Stapleton Elliot has been orientated to suit one culture more than the other resulting in a design that does not suit either side of the spectrum. In the conclusion of the paper ‘Archipelego Architecture: Housing for Polynesians in Auckland’ the design is described:

It is proposed that returning to this traditional island spatial hierarchy will give the residents a feeling of consolidation and confidence of their place within their new location of suburban Auckland. It might be noticed that the scheme is island-like and is an island in the sea of suburbia (p.767).

This indicates that the designers were aware that this state house design may be verging on having too much Samoan input, leaving the outcome undesirable to European Pakeha families who are unfamiliar with Samoan traditions.

The hybrid state housing described in this paper offers a step in the right direction for a proper assimilation with the western cultures being integrated with Samoan cultures, rather than forcing one culture to adapt to the other. This design may still encounter problems in the future, but will continue to develop as more Polynesian families immigrate to New Zealand.

8.0 – Development of Design:

The main migration period of Samoans to New Zealand occurred less than 50 years ago, therefore it is not yet something deemed ‘historical’. However it is a subject that has been viewed from all angles in attempts to reach a solution. For each housing design that has been built in New Zealand there is a pre-construction paper that underlines the advancements made and the expected results. Then, post-construction, another paper will appear, statistically underlining all errors that were made that need to be altered. The Stapleton Elliott design for Samoan State Housing has not yet had a post-construction paper written on it, but when it does get published, it will most likely include some of the criticisms made in this paper.

9.0 - Conclusion:

The difference in culture between Samoan families and Pakeha Europeans has been noted many times throughout this paper as the main difficulty in designing a hybrid house. This issue will continue to push designers to create new solutions to an aging problem, all while the Polynesian population in New Zealand continues to grow. While this design by Design Group, Stapleton Elliot, may not be the final solution, it is a step in the right direction for New Zealand finally embodying its multicultural brand and designing a hybrid housing option spanning all cultural differences.

![endif]--![endif]--

![endif]--