I'm doing a dissertation on flexibility of dwelling spaces - movable architecture. The scope of which extends from anything like movable partitions and walls, to movable, multifunctional living spaces, furniture, foldable installations etc... REFERENCES, IDEAS, LINKS, COMMENTS are welcome...
you may also want to look at: portable architecture and unpredictable surroundings by pilar ecchavaria (sp?) and a series of papers published under the title: transportable environments, edited by robert kronenburg
A: I applaud your concern with making more out of less! Not only is it a benefit to our ever growing society, it often results in interesting designs and innovative ideas. Besides, who doesn't want their house to be interactive these days? It doesn't mean that it has to be digital....
B: I criticize the profession (not you personally laistm) for only taking this issue up with dwelling spaces. I think this innovative initiative could be just as productive in other aspects of architecture. I don't see people thinking of creative new solutions in public spaces in tight places (I think that's a name of a new magazine I'll start; "Public Spaces in Tight Places").
some of it is great, but I always end up believing it's like shipping container homes (which, not coincidentally, Wes Jones is a huge proponent) - they are kinda cool, sounds like a superb idea, but when all is said and done, it looked better as an idea.
not that I haven'te seen great examples, but I think a lot of fundamental usability is disregarding in favor of the idea.
The question lies at the fact that if you are in such an urban density that requires highrise apartments (or really any urban/rural environment) do we really want to be designing anything that encourages the ownership of an automobile?
in everyday life we see various examples of multifunctions within our own houses....i remember for example, on tv, watching things like foldable beds which fit into the wall...opening out the floor space for other activities - recreational or work oriented etc.... i need further examples....specifically in residences...anything from high rise apartments to villas..
I say again, look to engage the historical, the yurt, the teepee, the crannog, all were one room dwellings from which modern multi-room domestic bliss has sprung.
thanks for all the info fellas....
the way i look at it is that flexibility in houses can extend all the way from new concepts in partition design...multi use of the same space...furniture...walls...etc...but i dont know exaclty where to research this stuff...
I was just looking through the complete works of Jean Prouve. Obviously not a survey but that guy totally owns folding, modular, prefab, whatever. Definitely give some respect to the old school.
my main intention driving the choice of this topic is the fact that in today's world, with the ever increasing human population and the subsequent demands of space, the field of multifunctionality within the dwelling unit becomes ever more important. Everything around us from mobile phones to office buildings are trying to put more into less. Be it virtual or physical. Unfortunately, it seems, there seems to be almost a "fear" as i might like to call it, in general, to step into the realm of multifunctionality and dualty of space. Is it because of the fact that this field then becomes too complicated?
i don't know if it's fear of multifunctional space so much as lack of comprehension/laziness. i mean, how is a realtor going to sell it if he/she can't list the rooms by their common names?
i live in a shotgun house, a type in which rooms often get shuffled and re-purposed. these drive some realtors crazy: "it's a two/three/four bedroom, maybe with a dining room, maybe not, but definitely a living room ... and another living room that you might call the family room."
most residential property is sold by listing an inventory of things so that it can be comped against another house with ITS inventory of things. imaginative use of spaces is really hard to inventory.
well then doesn't it then become a question of architectural ingenuity vs the realtor...?? i could like to think that if the realtor advertises the fact that the house has the flexibility of doing so much on demand...the desirability issue would skyrocket...dont you think?
"Learning from the Japanese City: West Meets East in Urban Design" by barrie shelton may have some insights.
and maybe "The Japanese House: A Tradition for Contemporary Architecture", by Heinrich Engels...
steve holl's housing in fukuoka at nexus world is a good example of trying to mix western and eastern ideas...but i think one of the best examples has still gotta be the shroeder house, by rietveld. oh and then there is diller and scofidio's use of plastic fusuma at the public housing project in gifu...no idea if it actually worked or not, but they had a go at it...
the japanese house as it used to be was/is quite flexible (not that many japanese live in them anymore). rooms are not assigned functions and change with daily life or according to season.
in my old house my wife and i would move our bedroom from the 2nd floor to the 1st and back again as the season changed from winter to summer. the 2nd floor room was easier to heat and was warmer, while the 1st floor room had no walls, just shoji (sliding paper screens) and a beautiful moss garden out back. it was amazing for the humid summer heat but stunningly unliveable in the winter. but this was only possible because we sleep on futons (which have no frames in japan) and put them away every morning and take them out every night. and we had neither sofa nor dining room table. we moved the dining table round depending on the number of guests and our mood. and we always sat on the floor....crazy, eh?
in our flat now the plan is incredibly open, and we converted a bedroom to living room by putting the fusuma (sliding doors) between it and the dining room into storage. works beautifully, but then again if we converted the room back in to a bedroom the 15mm thick walls would not offer up much in the way of privacy...which is why most japanese prefer a western style home. flexibility of this sort really does require a certain kind of culture to go with it and is not for everyone. my feeling now after living japanese style for nealy 15 years is that flexibility should not be mandated, just made possible. not sure how to do this yet, but lots of extra space is probably a good start...
traditional japanese architecture was a good start...but like everything in the human world, we find that if we stick to it....there'll always be a better way of doing it...i'm sure it will catch on...if we just do it right..
I'd really like to see some images if you dont mind :)
the thing about traditional japanese architecture isn't that they found a better way to do things. Rather the culture changed, and in a big way, so the houses did too. But it worked for hundreds of years. no right or wrong in the shift either. not as if the japanese suddenly were made aware of a better way of life or anything like that...
as for images, just google image the examples above and you will find a tonne of info. or get a book. if you want academic research try looking in sociological texts rather than architecture. should be quite a lot of research in that field ready made for you. but you will have to put in some effort...
i did a little talking here n there n have come to the same conclusion...it seems that it's better to study the needs and aspirations of the people living and requiring such spaces not so much so the multifunctionality but rather the aspect of adaptability with multifunctionality being a small branch of it.
not too old but its begining section is a discussion on preurban housing and it discussed all of the origins of movable house. it would inform your study. if you do a search on the author you will find some of his notes etc.
you also should look at jennifer siegal's work at omd and her thesis where she looks at the less than noble moble home and RV.
as for multifunctionality...becareful about the multifunctional space...it usually sucks for all rather than even being mediocre for any.
we are an adaptable people...you will find that to go from a single person in college to a person with multiple kids or living with roomates, or even the role our NON nuclear family has on the home REQUIRES that the home be all about adaptability...or we can just stick with the crappy system we have...
i grew up in NA, working class, new urbanist community typa house, but since finishing high scool (my god, 20 YEARS ago!) have lived in top floor of 30 story apt bldg in halifax, a 100 year old house in rural japan, a 150 m2 flat over a shop in london, and now in 1970's ville radieuse type flat in tokyo.
only the japanese places were particularly flexible, but all were comfy. all first world though. maybe that makes more of a difference than anything...?
multifinctional/adaptable places seem to me to only work if the culture goes with it. if you want to sleep in a bed rather than a futon then having a room that can convert from bedroom to dining room seems unlikely. but i guess my question is why adaptability is seen as inherently better? is it?
hi, i am also working on open house
there is a number of case studies in the book “Residential Open Building" by (ed) Stephen Kendall and Jonathan Teicher and some japanese examples such as Next 21 project.etc.
and also "Open House:Unbound Space and the Modern Dwelling" by Ngo,Dung,Zion,A.S, Thames & Hudson.
i think it is crappy because much like consumerism...we have "throw away" spaces. one and done. our rooms are prepared and setup for such a short portion of our day.
i have been reading about the 17th c houses and that most were open spaces...this allowed for a table to be the kitchen table, the work table, or just the place to sit. it was interesting that the rich had very little and were able to take it from home to home since they were always moving from place to place. the first "privacies" were found in houses they say around the 18th c. now it seems that this is all we have!
so is it adaptablility that is the good...no...but designing houses to form a symbiotic relationship with the inhabitants should be our goal. allowing the house to evolve as our lives evolve...our houses don't allow for this without extensive renovation. and if they are built in phases...they usually feel undone...or missing pieces.
our goal should be to find a house that is going to promote community...not just in the neighborhood, but in the people living in the house, while allowing for the regeneration needed when you are just home...
adaptability can be about moving as much as about physically changing the environment. This seems to be the american way, where people move about every 5-6 years as conditions change. bigger family, larger/smaller income, new job, etc.
and yet there is a fair amount of adaptability built into the system even as it is. families add rooms, even floors to their homes fairly regularly to accomodate growing kids or changing workplaces (SOHO, etc). Extensive renovation is maybe necessary sometimes (when existing floor space is too small), but usually it is not so hard to make a bedroom into an office, or vice versa. Adaptation by accretive growth is bad?
sprawl is undoubtedly not good, and the suburbs are i think not very adaptable as urban forms, which is maybe problematic from the point of community, but certainly an issue for dealing with things like aging populations that find suddenly that cars are their enemy and become trapped in their dependency...but even so, and even though it is against my instinct to the contrary, i wonder about mandating flexibility. at the urban scale i suspect there is maybe a third way...?
in the case of my current home, i was able to remove a bedroom and extend the living room by 16m2, simply by moving some sliding doors to storage. and i am grateful for that possibility. but if i am honest with myself that wouldn't have been necessary at all if the flat were more generously sized. 3 bedrooms in 80m2 is really just too cramped. so maybe flexibility is a problem for dense cities...? or a matter of income?
Mar 21, 06 12:14 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Flexibility of Dwelling spaces - Movable Architecture
I'm doing a dissertation on flexibility of dwelling spaces - movable architecture. The scope of which extends from anything like movable partitions and walls, to movable, multifunctional living spaces, furniture, foldable installations etc... REFERENCES, IDEAS, LINKS, COMMENTS are welcome...
that's a big topic.
here is my mini contibution: a book called Collapsible: The Genius of Space- Saving Design
Andrea Branzi, Vertical Living. Google will take you to his site and videos.
Take it from the original one-room multi-funtion yurt typology.
you may also want to look at: portable architecture and unpredictable surroundings by pilar ecchavaria (sp?) and a series of papers published under the title: transportable environments, edited by robert kronenburg
I was hoping to narrow down the topic of FLEXIBLE ARCHITECTURE by restricting my study to JUST Dwelling Spaces.
A: I applaud your concern with making more out of less! Not only is it a benefit to our ever growing society, it often results in interesting designs and innovative ideas. Besides, who doesn't want their house to be interactive these days? It doesn't mean that it has to be digital....
B: I criticize the profession (not you personally laistm) for only taking this issue up with dwelling spaces. I think this innovative initiative could be just as productive in other aspects of architecture. I don't see people thinking of creative new solutions in public spaces in tight places (I think that's a name of a new magazine I'll start; "Public Spaces in Tight Places").
some of it is great, but I always end up believing it's like shipping container homes (which, not coincidentally, Wes Jones is a huge proponent) - they are kinda cool, sounds like a superb idea, but when all is said and done, it looked better as an idea.
not that I haven'te seen great examples, but I think a lot of fundamental usability is disregarding in favor of the idea.
The question lies at the fact that if you are in such an urban density that requires highrise apartments (or really any urban/rural environment) do we really want to be designing anything that encourages the ownership of an automobile?
Ah, crap, wrong thread....sorry guys, that was suppose to go to the I'm Moving thread.
in everyday life we see various examples of multifunctions within our own houses....i remember for example, on tv, watching things like foldable beds which fit into the wall...opening out the floor space for other activities - recreational or work oriented etc.... i need further examples....specifically in residences...anything from high rise apartments to villas..
I say again, look to engage the historical, the yurt, the teepee, the crannog, all were one room dwellings from which modern multi-room domestic bliss has sprung.
The RCA in London has the Centre for the Study of the Domestic Interior whose staff will probably respond to direct questioning.
Bring in the changing patterns of usage. No longer does use 'X' happen in the home, or take an entire room to do. Technology drives.
Interesting study. We just recently explored the same idea in a project with intense space limitations.
http://www.piquearchitecture.com/VP.html
Might be a bit much for what you are studying but could be helpful.
You could just directly rip off the title of this show that's up at the ICA in Boston.
link
are there any specific books which give a detailed report or have a large number of case studies?
thanks for all the info fellas....
the way i look at it is that flexibility in houses can extend all the way from new concepts in partition design...multi use of the same space...furniture...walls...etc...but i dont know exaclty where to research this stuff...
I was just looking through the complete works of Jean Prouve. Obviously not a survey but that guy totally owns folding, modular, prefab, whatever. Definitely give some respect to the old school.
Find an old product design book from the 60's.
... at your university's library, that is.
i've checked at the library, but there wasnt much i could find...
here's a couple of important case studies:
earlier...
schindler house - schindler
schroder house - rietveld
tugenhat house - mies
later...
maison bordeaux - rem
curtain wall house - ban
that house w/ the pods - ban
kay...will do that..thanks
has anyone seen monster homes?
Check out Holl's Fukuoka housing block with its movable interior walls http://www.stevenholl.com/PT099_1C.htm
my main intention driving the choice of this topic is the fact that in today's world, with the ever increasing human population and the subsequent demands of space, the field of multifunctionality within the dwelling unit becomes ever more important. Everything around us from mobile phones to office buildings are trying to put more into less. Be it virtual or physical. Unfortunately, it seems, there seems to be almost a "fear" as i might like to call it, in general, to step into the realm of multifunctionality and dualty of space. Is it because of the fact that this field then becomes too complicated?
i heard that there's a lot of stuff on this topic in Japan...does anyone know of specific studies?
references?...
i don't know if it's fear of multifunctional space so much as lack of comprehension/laziness. i mean, how is a realtor going to sell it if he/she can't list the rooms by their common names?
i live in a shotgun house, a type in which rooms often get shuffled and re-purposed. these drive some realtors crazy: "it's a two/three/four bedroom, maybe with a dining room, maybe not, but definitely a living room ... and another living room that you might call the family room."
most residential property is sold by listing an inventory of things so that it can be comped against another house with ITS inventory of things. imaginative use of spaces is really hard to inventory.
well then doesn't it then become a question of architectural ingenuity vs the realtor...?? i could like to think that if the realtor advertises the fact that the house has the flexibility of doing so much on demand...the desirability issue would skyrocket...dont you think?
nothing really comes to mind....
"Learning from the Japanese City: West Meets East in Urban Design" by barrie shelton may have some insights.
and maybe "The Japanese House: A Tradition for Contemporary Architecture", by Heinrich Engels...
steve holl's housing in fukuoka at nexus world is a good example of trying to mix western and eastern ideas...but i think one of the best examples has still gotta be the shroeder house, by rietveld. oh and then there is diller and scofidio's use of plastic fusuma at the public housing project in gifu...no idea if it actually worked or not, but they had a go at it...
the japanese house as it used to be was/is quite flexible (not that many japanese live in them anymore). rooms are not assigned functions and change with daily life or according to season.
in my old house my wife and i would move our bedroom from the 2nd floor to the 1st and back again as the season changed from winter to summer. the 2nd floor room was easier to heat and was warmer, while the 1st floor room had no walls, just shoji (sliding paper screens) and a beautiful moss garden out back. it was amazing for the humid summer heat but stunningly unliveable in the winter. but this was only possible because we sleep on futons (which have no frames in japan) and put them away every morning and take them out every night. and we had neither sofa nor dining room table. we moved the dining table round depending on the number of guests and our mood. and we always sat on the floor....crazy, eh?
in our flat now the plan is incredibly open, and we converted a bedroom to living room by putting the fusuma (sliding doors) between it and the dining room into storage. works beautifully, but then again if we converted the room back in to a bedroom the 15mm thick walls would not offer up much in the way of privacy...which is why most japanese prefer a western style home. flexibility of this sort really does require a certain kind of culture to go with it and is not for everyone. my feeling now after living japanese style for nealy 15 years is that flexibility should not be mandated, just made possible. not sure how to do this yet, but lots of extra space is probably a good start...
traditional japanese architecture was a good start...but like everything in the human world, we find that if we stick to it....there'll always be a better way of doing it...i'm sure it will catch on...if we just do it right..
I'd really like to see some images if you dont mind :)
what do you think i should do to narrow down the scope of this research?..anyone?
Is there any web link that talks about multifunctionality in the realm of dwelling spaces?
the thing about traditional japanese architecture isn't that they found a better way to do things. Rather the culture changed, and in a big way, so the houses did too. But it worked for hundreds of years. no right or wrong in the shift either. not as if the japanese suddenly were made aware of a better way of life or anything like that...
as for images, just google image the examples above and you will find a tonne of info. or get a book. if you want academic research try looking in sociological texts rather than architecture. should be quite a lot of research in that field ready made for you. but you will have to put in some effort...
i did a little talking here n there n have come to the same conclusion...it seems that it's better to study the needs and aspirations of the people living and requiring such spaces not so much so the multifunctionality but rather the aspect of adaptability with multifunctionality being a small branch of it.
hey i have been reading this book... 6,000 years of housing
not too old but its begining section is a discussion on preurban housing and it discussed all of the origins of movable house. it would inform your study. if you do a search on the author you will find some of his notes etc.
you also should look at jennifer siegal's work at omd and her thesis where she looks at the less than noble moble home and RV.
as for multifunctionality...becareful about the multifunctional space...it usually sucks for all rather than even being mediocre for any.
we are an adaptable people...you will find that to go from a single person in college to a person with multiple kids or living with roomates, or even the role our NON nuclear family has on the home REQUIRES that the home be all about adaptability...or we can just stick with the crappy system we have...
what do you find crappy about the system we have?
i grew up in NA, working class, new urbanist community typa house, but since finishing high scool (my god, 20 YEARS ago!) have lived in top floor of 30 story apt bldg in halifax, a 100 year old house in rural japan, a 150 m2 flat over a shop in london, and now in 1970's ville radieuse type flat in tokyo.
only the japanese places were particularly flexible, but all were comfy. all first world though. maybe that makes more of a difference than anything...?
multifinctional/adaptable places seem to me to only work if the culture goes with it. if you want to sleep in a bed rather than a futon then having a room that can convert from bedroom to dining room seems unlikely. but i guess my question is why adaptability is seen as inherently better? is it?
hi, i am also working on open house
there is a number of case studies in the book “Residential Open Building" by (ed) Stephen Kendall and Jonathan Teicher and some japanese examples such as Next 21 project.etc.
and also "Open House:Unbound Space and the Modern Dwelling" by Ngo,Dung,Zion,A.S, Thames & Hudson.
i think it is crappy because much like consumerism...we have "throw away" spaces. one and done. our rooms are prepared and setup for such a short portion of our day.
i have been reading about the 17th c houses and that most were open spaces...this allowed for a table to be the kitchen table, the work table, or just the place to sit. it was interesting that the rich had very little and were able to take it from home to home since they were always moving from place to place. the first "privacies" were found in houses they say around the 18th c. now it seems that this is all we have!
so is it adaptablility that is the good...no...but designing houses to form a symbiotic relationship with the inhabitants should be our goal. allowing the house to evolve as our lives evolve...our houses don't allow for this without extensive renovation. and if they are built in phases...they usually feel undone...or missing pieces.
our goal should be to find a house that is going to promote community...not just in the neighborhood, but in the people living in the house, while allowing for the regeneration needed when you are just home...
waste is a bad thing i agree.
adaptability can be about moving as much as about physically changing the environment. This seems to be the american way, where people move about every 5-6 years as conditions change. bigger family, larger/smaller income, new job, etc.
and yet there is a fair amount of adaptability built into the system even as it is. families add rooms, even floors to their homes fairly regularly to accomodate growing kids or changing workplaces (SOHO, etc). Extensive renovation is maybe necessary sometimes (when existing floor space is too small), but usually it is not so hard to make a bedroom into an office, or vice versa. Adaptation by accretive growth is bad?
sprawl is undoubtedly not good, and the suburbs are i think not very adaptable as urban forms, which is maybe problematic from the point of community, but certainly an issue for dealing with things like aging populations that find suddenly that cars are their enemy and become trapped in their dependency...but even so, and even though it is against my instinct to the contrary, i wonder about mandating flexibility. at the urban scale i suspect there is maybe a third way...?
in the case of my current home, i was able to remove a bedroom and extend the living room by 16m2, simply by moving some sliding doors to storage. and i am grateful for that possibility. but if i am honest with myself that wouldn't have been necessary at all if the flat were more generously sized. 3 bedrooms in 80m2 is really just too cramped. so maybe flexibility is a problem for dense cities...? or a matter of income?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.