ARCHITECTONIC PATTERNS FOR LIVING

At this juncture, it is useful to state that this research project is approached from the perspective of a practicing architect.⁴ With this in mind, we will briefly discuss the role, or perhaps better described as, the responsibility of the architect when composing the spatial arrangement of the dwelling interior. As the organisation of a house is defined, places emerge that offer opportunities for inhabitant appropriation which support certain forms of dwelling and that hinder others. The completed design places constraints,

2. THE FUNCTIONALIST DWELLING

whether intentionally or not, on the daily lives and indeed everyday practices of those who inhabit the domestic built environment. The positioning and sizing of every wall, floor, ceiling and opening define spatial qualities that influence and contribute to the opportunities for appropriation that are inherent within the dwelling. Robin Evans notes the significance of the architectural plan and the consequence that it has on human interaction, and not just on the forms of dwelling supported within. “If anything is described by an architectural plan, it is the nature of human relationships, since the elements whose trace it records – walls, doors, windows and stairs – are employed first to divide and then selectively to re-unite inhabited space.”

(Evans, 1997, p. 56) Evans underlines the influence that the architect has on the social behaviour of those that inhabit the houses that they design, based upon their interior spatial organisation.

One of the primary, and indeed, fundamental purposes of a dwelling is to create a separation between an uncertain environment outside and a controllable domestic setting within. A dwelling creates conditions for the diverse habitual routines of its inhabitants, which are influenced by their historical, cultural, societal, political, economic, geographical and climatic context. Typically, these everyday routines are organised into definite activities which are in turn spatially situated in relation to one another in order to form a dwelling. Certain demands are then placed on the spatial organisation of the dwelling and upon the individual spaces needed to accommodate each purpose. Despite certain ubiquitous requirements, the contextual differences discussed above have led to a huge variation in the spatial organisation of dwellings throughout history. It is important at this stage to challenge our pre-conceptions about the spatial interior of the dwelling within a European context. Seemingly ubiquitous spatial devices such as the corridor, the mon0-functional room, the ‘terminal’ room and neutral ‘open plan’ spaces have all emerged within the last 150 years with the premise of improving the functionality of the domestic interior.

The conventions used to name and describe specific spaces within the home can also have a great consequence as to how one appropriates the domestic built environment. As architectural practitioners, it also greatly influences ones’ approach to spatial organisation when designing housing. Given its rich

2. THE FUNCTIONALIST DWELLING

5. In addition to Kiyoyuki Nishihara (1968) & Barrie Shelton (2012), other notable academics that have made productive comparisons between Japanese and Western traditions of spatial organisation within the dwelling include, Fumihiko Maki (2008), Florian Idenburg (2010), Cathelijne Nuijsink (2012) & Pippo Ciorra (2017).

architectural heritage, many academics⁵ have made productive comparisons between Japanese and Western traditions of spatial organisation, particularly in relation to the domestic interior. In the book, “Japanese Houses: Patterns for Living” (1968), the Japanese architect and academic, Kiyoyuki Nishihara contrasts what he refers to as the Western tradition of differentiating spaces within the dwelling based upon singular prescribed functions with the traditional Japanese home where the room nomenclature reflects their distinguishing spatial qualities and relationship to one another. The names,

‘Zashiki’ (main room), ‘Naka-no-ma’ (middle room) and ‘Tsugi-no-ma’ (the room next to the big room) help to describe the spatial organisation of the house, while at the same time leaving the programmatic function of each space open to interpretation by its inhabitants. Nishihara writes, “The West operates on the idea that each function has its own space. The very names bedroom, dining room, bathroom, clearly show the attitude that one function should have one designated room shut off from the other spaces by four walls.” (Nishihara & Gage, 1968, p. 108) The traditional Japanese dwelling, on the other hand, is composed from a relational field-configuration of

‘ma’, which Nishihara interestingly decides to translate to ‘place’ rather than

‘room’ or ‘space’, that can accommodate a wide variety of temporal activities, both daily and seasonally. Interestingly, through a process of abstraction, Nishihara establishes six recognisable activities that are supported by both the Japanese and Western nomenclature systems, which are, sleeping, family get-together, eating, cooking, washing/evacuation & working that identify common behaviours in dwelling across cultures. The Japanese naming system also points towards a fundamental difference in spatial perception as discussed by the British academic Barrie Shelton in his book, “Learning from the Japanese City” (2012). Shelton starts by reflecting upon the Japanese child, who learns to write by positioning individual geometric characters within a square grid and compares this to the western child, who learns to write by placing linear strings of letters on horizontal lines from left to right.

He then goes on to compare the Japanese city comprised of decentralised blocs each with their own centre with the western city that is typically focused around a single centre. In the two Japanese examples, spatial entities are simultaneously considered as independent elements, while at the same time always in consideration to their position within a greater constellation. The same phenomena can be observed in the spatial nomenclature of spaces

2. THE FUNCTIONALIST DWELLING

Figure 2.02 Comparisons between the functional approaches to spaces in the West and in Japan, Kiyoyuki Nishihara, 1968

2. THE FUNCTIONALIST DWELLING

within a traditional Japanese house. Nishihara proclaims, “The idea that, when all of the unit spaces needed to satisfy the needs of a family are brought together, that aggregate is a house, is the Western concept of residential architecture.” (Nishihara & Gage, 1968, p. 80) His critique of this form of spatial organisation centres on the notion that when a house is comprised from an aggregate of cellular spaces with prescribed functions, flexibility in use and its inherent opportunities for inhabitant appropriation are limited.

2.4 THE EMERGENCE & MATURATION OF THE FUNCTIONALIST