Thesis: Integrating Change Into Domestic Space
| Architecture | Housing | Dynamic Design |
Thesis statement:
Traditionally, buildings have been designed as static forms that do not adapt over time. This has created a problem as users’ requirements change over the life of the building. In order to allow flexibility into the design, the top-down approach of a designer and the bottom-up approach of the user should be integrated into a single method of design through the use of a flexible, parametric system. This would allow the designer to formalize space within a set of parameters, while allowing the user to transform their environment to their personal needs.
Thesis abstract:
“The architect’s task is to erect a building on this apparently stable ground that is durable and lasting, both in terms of materials and construction as well as aesthetic quality, a building that in a broader sense is materially and culturally sustainable. But however stable and durable buildings may be as a whole, they also contain movable elements, not least so that we can use them. In fact in many cases these moving parts are a prerequisite for the building’s durability.”
Move: Architecture in Motion- Dynamic Components and Elements
Michael Schumacher, et al.
While architecture may include moveable parts, it is inherently static, inflexible; in a sense- permanent. Those static, permanent features are what make it seem stable and durable, but in reality, how can something that does not adapt remain useful in a world of movement and people? People need the stability of place while still allowing the transformation of space. The form of architecture must begin to take on a more interactive function so that its’ users can interface and change their environments to their personal needs.
Typically, design is done from the top-down point of view of the designer. The designer may use a system of parameters that allows for flexibility in making design decisions until the entire system can be formalized- at which point, the design loses its original flexibility in the construction process. A more compelling method of design would be an integration of the top-down approach of the designer with the bottom-up approach of the user. This would allow the designer to use a flexible, parametrically defined system to define and formalize important aspects of the space while continuing to allow the user to transform the space as necessary for his or her needs within given parameters. This system allows interactivity between the user and the architecture which is realized through actuated movement.
Through this integrated method of design I will research and develop a system of fabrication (or fabricated parts) that utilizes the concepts of parametric variability and actuated movement to allow adaptation of the design to the user’s customization. It is intended for this system of fabrication (or fabricated parts) to be informed by the designer, the user, the fabricator, and the process of fabrication.
Keywords: interactive, dynamic, durable
in·ter·ac·tive
adj
1
: mutually or reciprocally active
2
: involving the actions or input of a user; especially : of, relating to, or being a two-way electronic communication system (as a telephone, cable television, or a computer) that involves a user's orders (as for information or merchandise) or responses (as to a poll)
— in·ter·ac·tive·ly adverb
— in·ter·ac·tiv·i·ty noun
1dy·nam·ic
adj
1
also dy·nam·i·cal a : of or relating to physical force or energy b : of or relating to dynamics
2
a : marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change b : energetic, forceful <a dynamic personality>
3
of random-access memory : requiring periodic refreshment of charge in order to retain data
— dy·nam·i·cal·ly adverb
Origin of DYNAMIC
French dynamique, from Greek dynamikos powerful, from dynamis power, from dynasthai to be able
First Known Use: 1799
2dynamic
noun
1
: a dynamic force
2
: dynamics 2; also : an underlying cause of change or growth
du·ra·ble
adj
: able to exist for a long time without significant deterioration; also : designed to be durable <durable goods>
— du·ra·bil·i·ty noun
— du·ra·ble·ness noun
— du·ra·bly adverb
Origin of DURABLE
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin durabilis, from durare to last — more at during
First Known Use: 14th century
Critical Position Statement:
Architecture is designed statically. A developer, often the intended user, enlists an architect to design a building for a specific program. That program would describe the needs of the client, as known, at the time of the building’s commission. This inherently represents a problem- while architects and clients alike strive to do research into the needs of the program by looking at models that are currently in existence and by playing out scenarios that the building is likely to experience, this is not enough to accurately describe every event that the building will undergo in its life cycle. The nature of life is unpredictability and buildings operate under the same principles. Thorough research is enough to give us, as designers, an idea of what will be happening in the space, but it does not include the fact that over time the client may find new requirements for the building that were now considered in design. There is also the possibility that the building will be inhabited as some time in its life by another owner that has a different set of requirements from the original owner. While this problem exists for all buildings in the realm of architecture, I will specifically be focusing on single-family domestic spaces and how these issues may be informed by the ideas of incorporating flexibility and long-term growth in a new housing typology.
By dissecting the current program of domestic space two types of change immediately arise. The first is the need for space that encounters many different functions throughout the day such as rest, preparation and consumption of food, cleanliness of body, relaxation, work, and entertainment. The second is the possibility of long-term change in family size: a bachelor marries and then they have children, children grow up and leave the nest, parents are divorced and result in a broken home- these situations all result in a need for the ability to change the structure of space. So the question is: How can we, as designers, anticipate these changes, utilizing the role and abilities of the architect to incorporate the user at many stages of their life? The idea of durability for single-family domestic space should not just include the durability of materials or the sustainability of the urban space, but also the ability for one structure to continue its usefulness throughout changing domestic circumstances, whether on a daily level or over a user’s lifetime.
It is important to start this investigation by looking into current domestic spaces and seeing how it does or does not handle these familial changes. If we start with an example of a family structure, we would start with a bachelor(ette). A bachelor’s needs are those for one individual: a small space for resting; a minimal space for preparing food- most likely a microwave and small stove for preparing food and a refrigerator for handling basic necessities; a living space that is geared towards media and entertainment; a small bathroom for daily cleansing- one sink, one toilet, and a shower; and possible a small yard for a dog or entertainment purposes. If this person were to get married and have a small child, the needs would grow. They would need: an increased size of kitchen- room for more fresh food, a general increase of food for two people, and a small dining space; a living space that becomes more family oriented- space for the baby and less likely to entertain many people; a larger bathroom for two- two sinks, a toilet, a shower, and a bath tub and an additional bathroom for guests; a yard geared towards the keeping of pets and a small area for the child to play; an additional room or space for the child; and a possible additional bed and bath for family guests. As the family grows and the couple has more children they will need: a larger kitchen and storage for more food, additional food preparation space, a much larger dining space; a living space that must be flexible for the needs of the whole family including homework, entertainment, art and crafts, etc.; many bathrooms depending on family size; a large yard for the children to play and outdoor entertainment space; many spaces for sleeping depending on family size. As the family grows older, the children will leave the nest and again, the family becomes two. As their lives have changed, their needs will also different from when they were just married, including: larger entertainment spaces and more personal spaces for individual hobbies, but less beds and baths as the children move out.
Typically, a family would handle all of these life changes by first starting with a “starter home”, which may include bedrooms and bathrooms that are not utilized, or a bachelor may have a roommate utilize the extra space and help defer costs. When a couple marries, the roommate moves out or the couple finds another home together. As the family size grows, they may need to find a new house with additional space or they begin to change the purpose of rooms: from an office to a bedroom for example. Instead of having a structure that can change or grow with them, they just change structures as the need arises. This may be fine some of the time, but often it uproots the family every time there is a significant change. It can cause children to change schools disrupting their social life and their current support structure, the family is introduced to a new environment that they have to learn and accommodate into their lives, and it forces the family to deal with financial situations that may be avoidable if the domestic space was more accommodating. Change in peoples’ lives can be a very constructive thing, but it would be more constructive if there was more control exhibited by the user, instead of changing situations dictating when that change must happen.
It would also be important to look at the changes in family structure over time and to demonstrate how a flexible domestic space may be able to adapt more efficiently to these new family structure types. Do these new family structures indicate the need for more flexibility? In the homes of the 1950’s, for example, it was common for men to be the one in the family to have a job and bring home the money to support the family. The women would often stay home to take care of the household and to raise the children. This “typical” family structure is what most houses were designed to serve. As society has progressed, it is more common to see women in the work place, creating DINKs- duel income, no kids, or having women being the sole “bread winner” for the family. This changes the family roles so that children are either taken care of by the father, a nanny, or put into some kind of day care system so the mother is released from her family duties during the day in order to work. It has also pushed on the work structure in many companies to allow working from home, 4/10 work schedules, and other flexible environments so that workers can spend more time with their families. Also, because of the increase of higher education and women workers, some women have also begun starting having children later in life. Another large factor operating in family roles is the large number of divorces and “broken homes” that have emerged. Many people in the X,Y, and Z generations have realized that marriage vows many not be a permanent thing or they take them much more seriously, resulting in more live-in situations or marriage later in life after a much longer dating period. From observation, individuals are becoming more conscious of their health, their environments, and family structure and are actively trying to be more healthy and happy in their lives. This is observed by the large number of gym memberships, the emergence of more health food stores and the incorporation of “health food” sections in normal grocery stores, and the changing roles in the work place- more people are staying at jobs for a shorter period of time and are looking for benefit packages that include more flexible work time, better health insurance, and less working hours per week. Moreover, as we realize that the population is growing more and more, space is becoming more precious, pushing families to live in smaller, more efficient spaces. This can be a positive thing; as it is, houses are designed to give a lot of room to each member of the family causing isolation from each other. You get the typical situation where the only place that a family comes together as a whole is the dining table, if they aren’t too busy to eat together. This situation is pushing our families to grow apart instead of growing together. By using space more efficiently, it produces more familial interactions, which strengthens each member’s support network and hence, results in more well adjusted individuals and less divorce. It also has the added advantage of being better for the environment as we build smaller footprints and utilize more outdoor living space, and again that goes back to healthier individuals, both mentally and physically.
By investigating what has already been done in this subject, I have come across many precedents that are useful in describing different ideas. The first is the idea of efficient, flexible spaces. These examples come in three categories: the first is furnishing modules that contain all the functions needed for domestic space that would be utilized in one “room” that then becomes the working spaces for each of these functions; the second is rolling rooms that again utilize one “space”, but then you roll the container to access each function; and a third would be a “room” that has storage units along the walls that slide to allow access to different programmatic spaces. These examples include: Crate House by Alan Wexler; Total Furnishing Unit by Joe Colombo; Phalanstery Module by Jimenez Lai; Turn On by Alles Wird Gut Architects; Multi-functional Dwelling by Gary Chang; and K-Space by 6a Architects. The biggest issue with each of these precedents is that you can only use a specific set of functions at one time. The best precedent that pushes that boundary is that of the Multi-functional Dwelling because it is one long space that has many of these sliding programmatic units so that you can access one or two programs at a time with each slide-able area resulting in several programs along the length of the room.
The second idea is that of efficient spaces that are derived from one module that uses an actuated movement to expand living space. The examples include: slide movement like that in Ove Glas House by 24H Architects and Sliding House by dRMM Architects; and, fold out motion like in La Petite Maison du Weekend by Patkau Architects, GuglHupf by Hans Peter Worndl, and Drop House by Antoine Cordier, Olivier Charles, and Armel Neouze. These programs allow expansion on a daily level, giving more programmatic space within the current functional parameters, but they do not allow for growth expansion over time that would accommodate the growth over time in a family structure.
The next idea is that of an expanding skin. The Hoberman Arch in Salt Lake City, Utah by Chuck Hoberman provides space that can be utilized as a small outdoor stage and indoor space or the skin mechanically opens uniting the spaces for a full outdoor stage. This idea can be specifically useful because the expansion of space and growth over time, the exterior of the proposed project will likely change shape over time. A mechanically operable skin may be a method for protecting each programmatic piece as it is added without significant renovation to the project over time.
Another idea that was studied was that of interactivity between the structure and the user. Kas Oosterhuis has done many projects on the subject. The two I specifically studied was Adaptive Façade and Trans-ports which are located in the Netherlands. These projects take in user information and the structure is then adapted accordingly. I think the idea of user input is extremely important, especially in such personal spaces as domestic situations. While these projects strictly adapt the skin, and hence the interior space, they do not necessarily make the interior space more efficient for the user. In the case of Trans-ports, the user isn’t directly inputting information so the project does not directly correlate to user comfort or desire. I would like to take these ideas but make them for effective for domestic situations by giving the user direct control over their environment to same way a user would open a window if they are hot or rearrange the furniture if they need a specific type of environment.
The last idea taken from the precedents is that of prefabrication and mobility. Several projects I looked at could be built off-site and transported into place. Examples included are: La Petite Maison du Weekend, GuglHupf, Drop House, and Mobile Dwelling Unit by Lot-ek. The idea of pre-fabrication gives the advantage of building repetitive objects more efficiently without delays caused by site conditions, weather, etc. Pre-fabrication also allows a strongly quality control and tolerance that may not be reasonable if built on-site. Many architects are concerned with the idea of site and feel that it may be lost in the pre-fabrication process. If conditions of each site are studied and a parametric design is created that takes in the properties of the individual sites, the loss of place can be avoided. It does, however, limit the materials and methods that can be used on each site: for example, you could not build a building out of earth and stone taken from the site efficiently in the pre-fabrication process.
In studying each of these ideas, I hope to design a new domestic single-family type that utilizes the concepts of change, family structure, pre-fabrication, flexibility, and growth to produce a more efficient and healthy environment for individuals and families. This concept should allow the architect to continue to play a strong role in design while allowing adaptability by the user in the end product.
Bibliography:
Primary Texts:
Michael Fox and Miles Kemp, Interactive Architecture, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009).
Robert Kroenenburg, Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, (London, England: Laurence King Publishing, 2007).
Michael Schumacher, Oliver Schaeffer, and Michael-Marcus Vogt, Move: Architecture in Motion- Dynamic Components and Elements, (Basel, Schweiz: Birkhauser Verlag AG, 2010).
Robert Woodbury, Elements of Parametric Design, (New York: Routledge, 2010).
Secondary Texts:
Henry T. Brown, 507 Mechanical Movements- Mechanisms & Devices, (LaVergne, TN USA: Watchmaker Publishing, 1906).
Lucy Bullivant, “4dsocial: Interactive Design Environments,” Architectural Design 77 (July/ August 2007).
Robin Evans, The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries, (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 1995).
Lisa Iwamoto, Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009).
Branko Kolarevic and Kevin Klinger, ed., Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture, (New York: Routledge, 2008).
Chris Lefteri, Making It: Manufacturing Techniques for Product Design, (London, England: Laurence King Publishing, 2007).