In the autumn of 2013 we made the decision, as the first external partner, to join the project HSB Living Lab. This decision resulted in phase one, which meant that we contributed to a brick-and-mortar location along with our other partners, HSB, Chalmers and Johanneberg Science Park. Today, we are twelve partners. HSB Living Lab pioneers real-life testing of new technological, social, and architectural innovations. For ten years, the house will serve as a living laboratory and home to about 40 students and researchers.

It is an arena for developing new ways to build and shape the future of housing, as well as a platform for work between collaboration partners. It will feature a residential section with student housing and an exhibition area, including offices, meeting rooms and showrooms for research. The project is one of a kind, as it is the first house where people will live while the research goes on.

Where yesterday’s architects might consider themselves to be finished, we are now continuing to develop our work in the building and its programming

Our role as architects

We designed the building as more than just a physical structure. It functions as a dynamic research platform, adapting both financially and functionally to support ongoing scientific work. Modular construction forms the foundation of the design, making the building itself part of the research. Researchers will evaluate these modules for future housing solutions, testing them as infill projects on streets or as standalone buildings in open areas. Some units could even be placed on rooftops to create three-dimensional properties.

“Where yesterday’s architects might consider themselves to be finished, we are now continuing to develop our work in the building and its programming. It is a special and exciting situation for us to be working on a project where the goal is not a finished structure, but rather a constantly updated, changing process,” sais project architect Peter Elfstrand.

Why are things the way they are today? How did they get this way? Is there anything we can change, and if so, how? Do things correspond with what we see as the needs of our times?

As architects, we have a great deal of responsibility towards social-centric building and thinking in a broader perspective with a long-term view. What we plan and build today must be adapted for the future, with the largest foundation in reality. But what can we really know about the future? Nothing, many would argue, but our commitment to the HSB Living Lab is a unique opportunity for us to participate in the dialogue on research and housing, both in the present and in the future. Along the way, we have the opportunity to ask questions such as: Why are things the way they are today? How did they get this way? Is there anything we can change, and if so, how? Do things correspond with what we see as the needs of our times?

What (and what not) to do

It is easy to get caught up in what not to do, and hindsight is of course 20-20. For example, many of us agree that it is not a good idea to build homes based on laws and rules derived from the 1940s and 1950s – something the trade still does today.

This approach hardly creates buildings for the future, tailored to generations with needs and perspectives different from their parents. Researchers have conducted similar studies before, like those we are now exploring with HSB Living Lab. Historical examples include kitchen studies in the People’s Home (Folkhemmet) of the 1930s and the Case Study Houses in post-war America, designed to address the urgent housing shortage. Many of these experiments missed the mark and are now considered failures. So, what suggests that this living lab will succeed?

“We are twelve equally involved and very committed partners; the central focus here is cooperation between academia and industry. Now we have reached a level where we are starting to work together in earnest. The results are hotly anticipated, but the most important thing is perhaps to always focus on people,” says Peter Elfstrand.

We see it as a blank canvas, something that can stand to be rearranged.

People in focus

The house serves as a technical stronghold, equipped with hundreds of sensors that monitor and analyze residents’ lifestyles and habits. For example, sensors track how often and when windows and refrigerators open to determine optimal cooling times. Researchers focus on electricity and water usage, but without making residents feel monitored. To ensure privacy, all data is coded. Residents should experience the building as a home, while partners have the opportunity to contribute their expertise and research. Democratic design forms the foundation of this approach.

A democratic design

Critics and observers have questioned the building’s aesthetics. No, it does not resemble something out of a sci-fi movie, and for good reason. The design was never meant to create an iconic structure that overshadows its content. Instead, the goal was to build a platform that evolves over time, remaining both dynamic and inclusive. As architects, we do not dictate answers or solutions in advance. Instead, we create the conditions for them to emerge. We see the building as a blank canvas, designed to be rearranged. This approach results in a flexible design with standard dimensions, interchangeable panels, and adaptable systems. The building’s aesthetics align with these fundamental principles.

Photo: Felix Gerlach

Photo: Felix Gerlach

Photo: Felix Gerlach

Photo: Felix Gerlach

In this project, we have not been able to take anything for granted. We’ve thrown everything up in the air and tested the boundaries between private, common and public. We have held focus groups with everything from behavioural scientists to sailboat manufacturers with expertise in galleys. Not taking anything for granted has been a great challenge, but it is also the driving force.

A major challenge

As architects, we take full responsibility for driving projects forward—asking questions, pushing boundaries, and ensuring thorough investigation and answers. This approach is challenging and, in some ways, breaks with tradition. At the same time, we see it as a strength to embrace experimentation and conceptual thinking. Through the projects we develop in the house, we expect to learn a great deal—not only from our successes but also from our mistakes.

One of our studies, called the Next Generation Kitchen, has already resulted in a product that students from Rice University in Texas are testing in the prototype phase in the house. It is called BioBlend and it is a waste grinder that creates finely ground compost within a closed system. We are also researching future storage in the house and solar panels on the façade. A lot can happen in ten years, but perhaps what we will learn the most from are the social aspects of how we will, and will want to live in the future. In effect, our participation in the project means that we have clients at arm’s length with which to conduct dialogues.

The greatest advantage for us as architects is perhaps that based on the facts we obtain. We actively shape the changes we envision to create a better environment for future generations. When it comes to building the future of sustainable cities and houses, the architect has an important and decisive role. We are inspecting, analysing and challenging this role now to become even better at what we do.