In different architectural panels I have been hearing this notion of man vs. nature and of the differentiation between the outside and the inside. As we try to solve programmatic dwelling issues, are we in a state where the outside just seems like the inside, and the separation between the outside and the inside is harder to see more and more? is that a good or bad thing?
Better question: How far back does integration of interior and exterior space go ? Who was the first to state this as a goal; who was the first to demonstrate by example ?
your school ain't taught you bout the "other" yet? in our happily postmodern world this sort of dualistic view is no longer quite PC nor talked about except in undergrad...
soja's text is def worth a read if you can stand all the philosophy...
personally having spent much of the last 2 decades in a land where in and out are celebrated for being rather fuzzy i gotta admit it ain't much of an issue to me. i do doubt there is any confusion on the part of anyone between what is in and what is out though...did you have anything in mind specifically?
I don't have anything in mind, thought it would make for an insteresting discussion, and you are right, it does not really get touched on, and maybe it should get talked about more often...great replies!
To go back to the original question, I think that the inside is becoming more and more a controlled envirronment, as opposed to it's previous status of shelter; it's more and more an idealized replica of the outside: light is controlled, temperature, quantity of water in the air...
This evolution has been foressen by architects since the crystal palace, and has been shared by Fuller, Frei Otto, archigram, the NASA and now the ecological trend.
Read the book about fuller "your private sky" if you haven't yet. Maybe also Peter Sloterdijk "foam" I guess it's the title in English).
the outside is where the neighbor's dog poops on your grass and the mosquitos bite; the inside is where the home entertainment system and the beer are. why would we want to blur these boundaries?!
The distinction between inside vs outside really comes into play when you have a 10' long Royal Bengal Tiger or an African alpha-male lion staring at you from behind bars. hmmm
thats also a testament to how much man has evolved and controlled his environment.
On a very prosaic level: it seems to me, and I think French alludes to this, that in the architecture and construction field we are trying to get to less of an attitude of absolutely keeping the "outside" environment "out" and more of trying to mix the two gently. The hermetically sealed non-operable windows and air conditioning of a typical office building are quite unpopular now, and big box stores are including skylights as a way to keep people in mental contact with the sun/weather. And this is leading to happier employees and happier (thus more likely to spend) shoppers.
Also, developments in rain screens, green roofs, retractable walls, bot to mention vernacular building methods seem to be moving towards working WITH the natural environment rather than putting up a metaphorical 6' thick concrete wall and hope that nothing can penetrate it.
Oct 16, 07 10:23 am ·
·
“trying to mix the two gently”
osmosis
1a. the tendency of a fluid, usually water, to pass through a semipermeable membrane into a solution where the solvent concentration is higher, thus equalizing the concentrations of materials on either side of the membrane.
1b. the diffusion of fluids through membranes or porous partitions.
2. a subtle or gradual absorption or mingling
[working title:] The Semipermeable Membrane of Architecture
2002.09.30:
When I first visited the house in 1975 it was one of those places (in Philadelphia) that was rarely visited. There was a young 'hippie-ish' tour guide 'working' there then, and he admitted to spending most of his time there completely alone. He said he loved it though, especially on rainy days because that's when he opened up the entire wall of the house that faced the lake/pond in the garden, and that's when he sat in the middle of the main room's floor "taking it all in."
Nothing says "bring the outside in/let the inside out" more yearningly/simply/poetically/prophetically than the "early" modernists and their use of identical material on "both sides of the wall" and their extension of material through the (frameless, "invisible") glass plane -- again and again and again.
Oct 16, 07 12:40 pm ·
·
SDR, care to provide lots of 'again and again and again' examples.
The continuity of material and form between interior and exterior is not the same thing as indoor/outdoor living, nor is it identical to integration of indoor and outdoor space -- but it might be analogous to either of those, I suppose ?
Identifications upon request. I can't believe that beautiful 7' wall of brick, in English Cross bond, was erected temporarily ! [Photos 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 of this post are by Julius Shulman.]
Yummy stuff, holz.box. That's quite a cantilever in the first house -- and the room in the last photo is a wonderful take on generous protected volume vs expansive openings ?
Here's a favorite indoor/outdoor house -- Schweikher and Elting, Upton residence, Scottsdale, 1950
The first thing that springs to mind [apart from the ghastly cliche inside/outside flow which is on the tip of every real estate agents tongue] is that the apparent 'openness' is really a form of containment.
It is the extension of power over the natural and/or outside world via the forms of geometry and sightlines. It is an attempt to exert control over what is seen, and is strategically linked to the property.
This probably goes back to the 'other', the sublime landscape and the terror of nature. There is a physiological effect implicit in these acts.
In the Tezuka image above where we have an open side with approximately 4m to the boundary acting in opposition to the neighbour. I can't help but think about the political and social dynamics of that space.
Whereas in Campo Baeza's work above, the courtyard space is a more conventional room, but abstractly so because it only has a visual relationship with the sky - which is itself is hard to quantify and control. In fact, occupying that kind of space is more of an act of submission than control.
Excellent points. I am reminded of the "whole-lot" designs of some of the Case Study architects -- and of the wonderful study of Wright by Grant Hildebrand, where he uses the landscape theory of Prospect/Refuge to explain the circuitous-route-to-a-raised-outlook houses. . .
Here's the text to the last Tezuka residence above:
Engawa House
"The long and narrow house is placed to be facing the mother’s house over the courtyard. The whole house becomes as a porch by opening 16 meters of the glass sliding doors."
I guess the closer the relationship, the closer the two open porches could be to each other ?
very photogenic examples. very zen like living conditions that require some incredable dedication, paperless living. there would be no waste if everybody live like those homes suggest.
i saw a very messy usonian house near pasadena, it was beautiful nevertheless. ditto for eames house, a lot of niknaks but beautiful.
a century ago: outside was where people went to crap
a century later: inside is where people go to crap
lesson over.
Like many things within architecture the answers are fluid changing as man develops, nature/outside is no longer this place to be tamed and control rather ethos and place to be respected
That echoes something I just read: Our ancestors yearned for what we have, and we yearn for what they had.
Japanese architects have been showing barely furnished, minimalist residences for some years now. Are the photographs representative of how those houses are actually used, or are they just more strictly "styled" for the photographer ?
I have also just had the thought that the theory of honest signalling may also come into play here. Basically, this theory explains why costly signals in biological systems are produced instead of less costly signals.
For example, the gazelle jumping when it sees a predator is costly produce in terms of energy, but sends a signal to the predator not to bother because catching it will be too difficult [because it can run fast and jump high]. So it is a kind of a gamble between perception and reality in the cause of self-preservation. So therefore the signaller that can afford to make the signal benefits.
So the kind of openness required to enact the modernist inside/outside relationship is the result of a vulnerability [caused by opening the inside to the potential of looking in via glazing for example] balanced with an exertion of control over the area of vulnerability [the extension of the dwelling onto the landscape via sightlines].
And as per usual, it is the client that can afford the modernist dwelling that benefits - the signal of the expense taken is mitigated by the perception that the expense can be made with little effort.
From that I get that a box in the middle of the lot is the cheapest shelter but without outdoor privacy; a house with an atrium (to enclose and control the outdoors) will cost more for the same enclosed footage -- and a box with lot-line privacy fences (like some cost-conscious Case Study examples) might be a good compromise. . .
I think that Bergstrom essay on honest signaling is worth the time. It covers a lot of ground, at one point teasing us with this:
From this, [John Stuart] Mill went on to conclude (reasonably enough) that these [luxury] goods are particularly good candidates for taxation, pointing out that increasing the price doesn't make status goods any less desirable: "When a thing is bought not for its use but for its costliness, cheapness is no recommendation....a tax on the article is really paid by nobody: it is a creation of public revenue by which nobody loses."
[Why then do the rich still resist taxation more vocally than others ?]
Oct 16, 07 11:36 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.
Differentiation between the outside and the inside.
In different architectural panels I have been hearing this notion of man vs. nature and of the differentiation between the outside and the inside. As we try to solve programmatic dwelling issues, are we in a state where the outside just seems like the inside, and the separation between the outside and the inside is harder to see more and more? is that a good or bad thing?
Better question: How far back does integration of interior and exterior space go ? Who was the first to state this as a goal; who was the first to demonstrate by example ?
the primitive hut?
bad thing
The Great Pyramid maintains a strict differentiation between outside and inside--life and light outside, darkness and death inside.
"The absolute rule of architecture is that the inside has to be different than the outside." 1983
Yet really great architecture manages to keep the rule and break the rule simultaneously.
The Pantheon at Rome brings the whole cosmology inside.
The Hall of Mirrors at Versailles reflects the whole garden inside.
The Kimbell Art Museum brings the outside light inside.
Osmotic Architecture.
the inside is always different from the outside, with or without the differentiation by architects...
this is one of the big question mark when i heard it at undergrad school.
man v nature; inside v outside huh?
your school ain't taught you bout the "other" yet? in our happily postmodern world this sort of dualistic view is no longer quite PC nor talked about except in undergrad...
soja's text is def worth a read if you can stand all the philosophy...
personally having spent much of the last 2 decades in a land where in and out are celebrated for being rather fuzzy i gotta admit it ain't much of an issue to me. i do doubt there is any confusion on the part of anyone between what is in and what is out though...did you have anything in mind specifically?
I don't have anything in mind, thought it would make for an insteresting discussion, and you are right, it does not really get touched on, and maybe it should get talked about more often...great replies!
To go back to the original question, I think that the inside is becoming more and more a controlled envirronment, as opposed to it's previous status of shelter; it's more and more an idealized replica of the outside: light is controlled, temperature, quantity of water in the air...
This evolution has been foressen by architects since the crystal palace, and has been shared by Fuller, Frei Otto, archigram, the NASA and now the ecological trend.
Read the book about fuller "your private sky" if you haven't yet. Maybe also Peter Sloterdijk "foam" I guess it's the title in English).
the outside is where the neighbor's dog poops on your grass and the mosquitos bite; the inside is where the home entertainment system and the beer are. why would we want to blur these boundaries?!
The distinction between inside vs outside really comes into play when you have a 10' long Royal Bengal Tiger or an African alpha-male lion staring at you from behind bars. hmmm
thats also a testament to how much man has evolved and controlled his environment.
On a very prosaic level: it seems to me, and I think French alludes to this, that in the architecture and construction field we are trying to get to less of an attitude of absolutely keeping the "outside" environment "out" and more of trying to mix the two gently. The hermetically sealed non-operable windows and air conditioning of a typical office building are quite unpopular now, and big box stores are including skylights as a way to keep people in mental contact with the sun/weather. And this is leading to happier employees and happier (thus more likely to spend) shoppers.
Also, developments in rain screens, green roofs, retractable walls, bot to mention vernacular building methods seem to be moving towards working WITH the natural environment rather than putting up a metaphorical 6' thick concrete wall and hope that nothing can penetrate it.
“trying to mix the two gently”
osmosis
1a. the tendency of a fluid, usually water, to pass through a semipermeable membrane into a solution where the solvent concentration is higher, thus equalizing the concentrations of materials on either side of the membrane.
1b. the diffusion of fluids through membranes or porous partitions.
2. a subtle or gradual absorption or mingling
[working title:]
The Semipermeable Membrane of Architecture
2002.09.30:
When I first visited the house in 1975 it was one of those places (in Philadelphia) that was rarely visited. There was a young 'hippie-ish' tour guide 'working' there then, and he admitted to spending most of his time there completely alone. He said he loved it though, especially on rainy days because that's when he opened up the entire wall of the house that faced the lake/pond in the garden, and that's when he sat in the middle of the main room's floor "taking it all in."
Nothing says "bring the outside in/let the inside out" more yearningly/simply/poetically/prophetically than the "early" modernists and their use of identical material on "both sides of the wall" and their extension of material through the (frameless, "invisible") glass plane -- again and again and again.
SDR, care to provide lots of 'again and again and again' examples.
it's too expensive to mix inside & outside. i can save lots of money by not using windows.
Two examples; more to follow (with pleasure).
House for two, German Pavilion at Brussels International Exhibition, 1958
-- demolished (Eduard Ludwig, Berlin)
The continuity of material and form between interior and exterior is not the same thing as indoor/outdoor living, nor is it identical to integration of indoor and outdoor space -- but it might be analogous to either of those, I suppose ?
Oooh, delicious, SDR!
Identifications upon request. I can't believe that beautiful 7' wall of brick, in English Cross bond, was erected temporarily ! [Photos 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 of this post are by Julius Shulman.]
are really good at blurring the boundaries.
as with campo baeza
why would anyone destroy ludwig's project?!?
Yummy stuff, holz.box. That's quite a cantilever in the first house -- and the room in the last photo is a wonderful take on generous protected volume vs expansive openings ?
Here's a favorite indoor/outdoor house -- Schweikher and Elting, Upton residence, Scottsdale, 1950
Widow Upton sold; became nightclub; demolished
Good lord -- the Tezuka houses go on and on, each more lovely than the last.
Those roofs. . .
The first thing that springs to mind [apart from the ghastly cliche inside/outside flow which is on the tip of every real estate agents tongue] is that the apparent 'openness' is really a form of containment.
It is the extension of power over the natural and/or outside world via the forms of geometry and sightlines. It is an attempt to exert control over what is seen, and is strategically linked to the property.
This probably goes back to the 'other', the sublime landscape and the terror of nature. There is a physiological effect implicit in these acts.
In the Tezuka image above where we have an open side with approximately 4m to the boundary acting in opposition to the neighbour. I can't help but think about the political and social dynamics of that space.
Whereas in Campo Baeza's work above, the courtyard space is a more conventional room, but abstractly so because it only has a visual relationship with the sky - which is itself is hard to quantify and control. In fact, occupying that kind of space is more of an act of submission than control.
Both acts have their benefits and drawbacks.
diabase,
what i love about the baeza house is that from inside, there is no view of the sky, only reflected light or darkness.
Excellent points. I am reminded of the "whole-lot" designs of some of the Case Study architects -- and of the wonderful study of Wright by Grant Hildebrand, where he uses the landscape theory of Prospect/Refuge to explain the circuitous-route-to-a-raised-outlook houses. . .
Here's the text to the last Tezuka residence above:
Engawa House
"The long and narrow house is placed to be facing the mother’s house over the courtyard. The whole house becomes as a porch by opening 16 meters of the glass sliding doors."
I guess the closer the relationship, the closer the two open porches could be to each other ?
Right,
I didnt read about that situation with that house - it shows there are cultural differences in the treatment of land and sp
cont... ace. I could not imagine the same situation with my mother - that strip of land would be highly charged...
very photogenic examples. very zen like living conditions that require some incredable dedication, paperless living. there would be no waste if everybody live like those homes suggest.
i saw a very messy usonian house near pasadena, it was beautiful nevertheless. ditto for eames house, a lot of niknaks but beautiful.
a century ago: outside was where people went to crap
a century later: inside is where people go to crap
lesson over.
Like many things within architecture the answers are fluid changing as man develops, nature/outside is no longer this place to be tamed and control rather ethos and place to be respected
That echoes something I just read: Our ancestors yearned for what we have, and we yearn for what they had.
Japanese architects have been showing barely furnished, minimalist residences for some years now. Are the photographs representative of how those houses are actually used, or are they just more strictly "styled" for the photographer ?
I have also just had the thought that the theory of honest signalling may also come into play here. Basically, this theory explains why costly signals in biological systems are produced instead of less costly signals.
For example, the gazelle jumping when it sees a predator is costly produce in terms of energy, but sends a signal to the predator not to bother because catching it will be too difficult [because it can run fast and jump high]. So it is a kind of a gamble between perception and reality in the cause of self-preservation. So therefore the signaller that can afford to make the signal benefits.
So the kind of openness required to enact the modernist inside/outside relationship is the result of a vulnerability [caused by opening the inside to the potential of looking in via glazing for example] balanced with an exertion of control over the area of vulnerability [the extension of the dwelling onto the landscape via sightlines].
And as per usual, it is the client that can afford the modernist dwelling that benefits - the signal of the expense taken is mitigated by the perception that the expense can be made with little effort.
From that I get that a box in the middle of the lot is the cheapest shelter but without outdoor privacy; a house with an atrium (to enclose and control the outdoors) will cost more for the same enclosed footage -- and a box with lot-line privacy fences (like some cost-conscious Case Study examples) might be a good compromise. . .
I think that Bergstrom essay on honest signaling is worth the time. It covers a lot of ground, at one point teasing us with this:
From this, [John Stuart] Mill went on to conclude (reasonably enough) that these [luxury] goods are particularly good candidates for taxation, pointing out that increasing the price doesn't make status goods any less desirable: "When a thing is bought not for its use but for its costliness, cheapness is no recommendation....a tax on the article is really paid by nobody: it is a creation of public revenue by which nobody loses."
[Why then do the rich still resist taxation more vocally than others ?]
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.