I am currently thinking about the design of a Japanese Culinary Institute . As part of this, I have been looking at traditional Japanese Architecture, because its formal qualities lend themselves to easy application (both in the modular arrangement of program, and in the similarities to modernist space). At the same time I am interested in playing with the "grid" (in moves similar to Peter Eisenmans), but wonder: Is standardization/simplicity inherent to the arrangment of Japanese spaces?
standardisation made things easier for builders, same in japan as in north america. but the better examples placed experience of place over repitition.
katsura villa in kyoto is an example, where the standard system of measurement was altered throughout the building in order to improve views, alter the space, etc. so there is no real module. it is a custom job, that happened to begin with a standard model.
there are interestingly few rooms with assigned functions in the villa. no librabry, no bedroom, no xxxx. cool thing about japanese architecture from the 16th century was that rooms were named for the experience more than the function, so the moon viewing room was a great place to do that, but its function was open...
but there is very little of that now. japan has moved on quite thoroughly in that sense. but if it makes you feel better japanese architecture is quite acomodating of anything that works so you shouldn't feel too constrained by the system. go nuts.
"cool thing about japanese architecture from the 16th century was that rooms were named for the experience more than the function"
Jump, do you know of any books that might go into detail with this idea? When I taught a design studio a few years ago, I tried to dissuade students of the notion that program was a list of functions and square footages by getting them to think of program elements as verbs instead of nouns- a place for sleeping instead of merely a bedroom.
heinrich engel's book on the Japanese House might deal with this a bit. it was written i think in the 60's and is tailored to the modernist agenda, but in the section on Japanese tea houses he writes at length about the idea that a room in a japanese house only takes on meaning when it is inhabited, when something is being done inside it. He contrasted this approach to architecture with the Western view where rooms are given meaning from the start and this meaning does no change if a person is using it or not...
a more recent book, on the japanese city, by barrie shelton offers a more recent point of view. but both are quite highly romanticised, which means they see mostly what they WANT to see in Japan. so take a with a grain of salt...
i can't recall where i read about katsura villa but there is an article somewhere out there that discusses what i mentioned above, and goes into detail. you might find it after some creative googling...
Mar 18, 06 10:14 am ·
·
Adso, you say: I tried to dissuade students of the notion that program was a list of functions and square footages by getting them to think of program elements as verbs instead of nouns- a place for sleeping instead of merely a bedroom.
A place for sleeping and a bedroom don't really sound all that different to me because it's still just applying a function to a space.
[It seems] the point of Japanese architecture of the 16th century is that one could well choose to sleep in the moon viewing room or choose to sleep in the breeze catching room, or choose to sleep in the fragrant room etc. The same would go for eating, reading, (cooking?), etc.
And if all the sliding wall panels doubled as flat screen monitors, then you could watch TV anywhere too.
[I wonder what verb best describes this type of thinking.]
Quo, you are absolutely right on that count. The noun/verb switch was just a method of changing the semantics of what constituted a program as far as foundation-level students are concerned. It constitutes a first step, where they can stop considering the spaces of a project as being defined by an activity (although still connected to the space) and not so much as a place defined by what furniture gets stuck inside of it.
Basing programmatic elements on experience instead, I believe, would be the next logical step in getting students to question their preconceived notions of what program really means, especially if the idea of function/activity was uncoupled from a space. Kind of like being a nomad in your own house.
Mar 18, 06 5:06 pm ·
·
adso, yes, I understand the process; I too was once a 'foundation-level student'. What I've further learned, however, is that 'foundation-level students' are not the only ones with preconceived notions in that exercise. I wonder what would happen if 'foundation-level students' were instead introduced to a number of choices that they can then explore on their own, in a sense arbitrate their own volitions, and even change their volitions whenever the mood strikes.
How and why and what-if space is somewhat easily defined and even redefined by furniture is likely something that all good architects should continually observe, study and practice, and certainly not something to deny.
[Quondam, a virtual museum of architecture, first originated from a basement that was years before changed into a 'recreation' room complete with built-in bar, and for almost eight years now originates from a bedroom that was also years before converted into a study--the room is now a workstation and library, yet it has always been the room to see the rising sun.]
Mar 19, 06 11:46 am ·
·
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.
"Breaking The Japanese Grid"
I am currently thinking about the design of a Japanese Culinary Institute . As part of this, I have been looking at traditional Japanese Architecture, because its formal qualities lend themselves to easy application (both in the modular arrangement of program, and in the similarities to modernist space). At the same time I am interested in playing with the "grid" (in moves similar to Peter Eisenmans), but wonder: Is standardization/simplicity inherent to the arrangment of Japanese spaces?
not really.
standardisation made things easier for builders, same in japan as in north america. but the better examples placed experience of place over repitition.
katsura villa in kyoto is an example, where the standard system of measurement was altered throughout the building in order to improve views, alter the space, etc. so there is no real module. it is a custom job, that happened to begin with a standard model.
there are interestingly few rooms with assigned functions in the villa. no librabry, no bedroom, no xxxx. cool thing about japanese architecture from the 16th century was that rooms were named for the experience more than the function, so the moon viewing room was a great place to do that, but its function was open...
but there is very little of that now. japan has moved on quite thoroughly in that sense. but if it makes you feel better japanese architecture is quite acomodating of anything that works so you shouldn't feel too constrained by the system. go nuts.
"cool thing about japanese architecture from the 16th century was that rooms were named for the experience more than the function"
Jump, do you know of any books that might go into detail with this idea? When I taught a design studio a few years ago, I tried to dissuade students of the notion that program was a list of functions and square footages by getting them to think of program elements as verbs instead of nouns- a place for sleeping instead of merely a bedroom.
i think
heinrich engel's book on the Japanese House might deal with this a bit. it was written i think in the 60's and is tailored to the modernist agenda, but in the section on Japanese tea houses he writes at length about the idea that a room in a japanese house only takes on meaning when it is inhabited, when something is being done inside it. He contrasted this approach to architecture with the Western view where rooms are given meaning from the start and this meaning does no change if a person is using it or not...
a more recent book, on the japanese city, by barrie shelton offers a more recent point of view. but both are quite highly romanticised, which means they see mostly what they WANT to see in Japan. so take a with a grain of salt...
i can't recall where i read about katsura villa but there is an article somewhere out there that discusses what i mentioned above, and goes into detail. you might find it after some creative googling...
Adso, you say:
I tried to dissuade students of the notion that program was a list of functions and square footages by getting them to think of program elements as verbs instead of nouns- a place for sleeping instead of merely a bedroom.
A place for sleeping and a bedroom don't really sound all that different to me because it's still just applying a function to a space.
[It seems] the point of Japanese architecture of the 16th century is that one could well choose to sleep in the moon viewing room or choose to sleep in the breeze catching room, or choose to sleep in the fragrant room etc. The same would go for eating, reading, (cooking?), etc.
And if all the sliding wall panels doubled as flat screen monitors, then you could watch TV anywhere too.
[I wonder what verb best describes this type of thinking.]
Quo, you are absolutely right on that count. The noun/verb switch was just a method of changing the semantics of what constituted a program as far as foundation-level students are concerned. It constitutes a first step, where they can stop considering the spaces of a project as being defined by an activity (although still connected to the space) and not so much as a place defined by what furniture gets stuck inside of it.
Basing programmatic elements on experience instead, I believe, would be the next logical step in getting students to question their preconceived notions of what program really means, especially if the idea of function/activity was uncoupled from a space. Kind of like being a nomad in your own house.
adso, yes, I understand the process; I too was once a 'foundation-level student'. What I've further learned, however, is that 'foundation-level students' are not the only ones with preconceived notions in that exercise. I wonder what would happen if 'foundation-level students' were instead introduced to a number of choices that they can then explore on their own, in a sense arbitrate their own volitions, and even change their volitions whenever the mood strikes.
How and why and what-if space is somewhat easily defined and even redefined by furniture is likely something that all good architects should continually observe, study and practice, and certainly not something to deny.
[Quondam, a virtual museum of architecture, first originated from a basement that was years before changed into a 'recreation' room complete with built-in bar, and for almost eight years now originates from a bedroom that was also years before converted into a study--the room is now a workstation and library, yet it has always been the room to see the rising sun.]
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.