On the bigger scale, the rationale of the prototypes extends to urbanism. But what is the difference when repositioning the elements directly on the ground? The elements stay, but the relations to the world change. The area in the close vicinity of the prototype has different qualities than to those before (balcony, gallery) Thus the idea of providing a private plot came. Same element, different relation indeed. The prototype defined the width of the longitudinal plot and the way they are positioned on the plot affects the relation to the direct neighbourhood and the other prototypes. Thus starting a dialogue with its neighbours, that has never been there. The reuse also goes with re:building the community itself. Rebuilding a community from the very elements it once occupied. Legibility of the space was the guiding principle in the design, achieving it through clearly (yet not aggressively) marking the private/communal/public. Once multiple prototypes are laid out on a ground in multiple, they start to cluster, forming inner world enclosed by façades. The urban masterplan reflects and interacts with the neighbourhood and the organism of the city. It connect to the main arteries, thus creating a common space rather than a barriers. It also accepts and embraces the principles of a masterplan that has been designed by Ziegler-Branderhorst office. However it reflects the surrounding and enhances the overall rationale of a imposed grind on the site. In my design the grid is present, however it's not rectangular and breaks the building into identifiable cluster. This way it also reacts to the building that is currently present on the north of the site. Making three scenarios possible. Stating that, if the building is about to be vacant in the future, it is worth exploring possibilities of applying reuse strategies onto it as well. Perhaps merging with the elements from the building block C.