adaptive /flexible domestic architecture

How can it be successfully obtained and in what ways does it influence the changeable role of the user?

Mateusz Gra 10192399 // BA(Hons) Architecture, Year 3 // University of Lincoln, School of Architecture // ARC3001M// Tutor: David Hall

Table of contents:

List of illustrations............................................. I-Introduction....................................................... Adaptability & flexibility.......................................... II-Architects and their projects............................ Eileen Gray E-1027.................................................. Herman Hertzberger Diagoon Dwellings................... Sou Fujimoto Final Wooden House........................ III-Typology of spaces.......................................... Flexibility by open plan and technical means............. Polyvalence and incompletion................................ Primitive Future....................................................... IV-Space against user........................................... Inhuman design...................................................... House VI by Peter Eisenman................................. V-Conclusion....................................................... Role of the user.................................................... Future.......................................................................... VI-Bibliography..........................................................

2 3 3 5 6 7 8 9 9 11 12 14 14 15 18 18 19 20

List of illustrations Figure 1- plan scanned from Kronenburg David,( 2007) Flexible: architecture that responds to change page 26 London Uk, Lawrence King Publishing Ltd Figure 2- drawing scanned from Hertzberger Herman,( 1987) Herman Herzberger 1959-86 Bauten und Projekte Den Haag, Nederland Figure 3- plans scanned from Schneider Tatjana & Till Jeremy, (2007) Flexible Housing page Oxford, Elsevier inc page 82 Figure 4,10,11- photograph Iwan Baan July 2008 "Final Wooden House / Sou Fujimoto 23 Oct 2008. ArchDaily. Accessed 3 Dec 2011. http://www.archdaily.com/7638 Figure 5- picture from article <http://designteam.pl/571> posted 20 November 2009 Accessed 28 January 2011 courtesy of Sou Fujimoto architects, Tokyo, Japan Figure 6- scanned from Constant Caroline, (2000) Eileen Gray London, Phaidon Figure 7- drawings scanned from Hertzberger Herman,( 1987) Herman Herzberger 1959-86 Bauten und Projekte page 84 Den Haag, Nederland Figure 8- scanned from Fujimoto Sou,(2008) Primitive Future, page 131 Tokyo, Inax Figure 9- interior scheme from article <http://www.sztukaarchitektury.pl/index.php?ID_PAGE=16633> Accessed 20 January 2011 courtesy of Sou Fujimoto Architects, Tokyo, Japan Figure 12,13- photographs scanned from Eisenman Peter, Krauss Rosalind, Tafuri Manfredo (1987) Houses of Cards Oxford University Press

Figure 14,15,16- photographs and drawings form article Perez , Adelyn . "AD Classics: House VI / Peter Eisenman" 04 Jun 2010. ArchDaily. Accessed 08 Feb 2011. <http://www.archdaily.com/63267>

I- Introduction We are flexible creatures. We move about at will, manipulate objects, operate and interact in different types of environments. Not too long ago there was a time in evolutionary terms, when human existence was based on our capacity for movement, changing closest environment and adapting to new conditions. Most of today living cultures and communities lead a more or less sedentary life, but it could be, that flexibility and adaptability is once again becoming a priority in human development forced by technological, social and economic changes (Kronenburg, 2007: 9). To examine this kind of human spatial adaptability I will study it in terms of our basic living environment domestic architecture. Throughout the twentieth century there has been a fascination with search for perfect home, and many of projects have focused mainly on flexibility and adaptability as a key inventive aspect (Kronenburg, 2007: 37- 41). The aim of this essay is to investigate what can create a successful, adaptive/flexible living space, in terms of changeable role of the user and different approaches to domestic architecture throughout the past 80 years. A dwelling or a house is volatile and inevitably dynamic but despite that fact it is still too often framed intellectually and physically as a fixity (Schneider, Till, 2007: 35). Today the vast majority of houses is not adaptable or flexible, but actually builds in inflexibility, and with it obsolescence (Schneider, Till, 2007: 35). In most of the cases houses are planed according to local administration, investor and architects predictions about what people want and more often spatial conditions are created in such a way, that the user does not have chance to express his own interpretation and sometimes he is hindered to do any changes (Hertzberger, 1991:158-159). This changes could have various reasons, like personal, practical, technological and be caused by demographical, environmental or economic circumstances (Schneider, Till, 2007: 4). A hospitable and successful domestic design responds to this kind of changes, adapts to new uses and even inspire users to discover new interaction with the space they are living in. It Is motive rather than static and interacts with it users, rather than inhibits (Kronenburg, 2007: 10). Therefore, flexible housing is the housing that can respond to the volatility of a dwelling. As a result it is being adaptable or flexible, or both. However these two terms need some clarification. Both phrases are used often to describe the same thing and sometimes it could be confusing. The clearest definition or distinction between these two was made by Steven Groak (Schneider, Till, 2007: 5). He defines adaptability as capable of different social uses and flexibility as capable of different physical arrangements (Groak, 1992: 15). For instance, adaptability is achieved by designing spaces so that they can be used in variety of ways, basically through the way that rooms are planned, the circulation patterns and the designation of rooms (Schneider, Till, 2007: 5). 3

On the other hand flexibility is achieved more through the technology and the structure of the building: joining together or rejoining rooms, extending them, or through sliding ,folding walls or furniture. Therefore, adaptability is based around issues of use; flexibility involves issues of form, structure and technique (Schneider, Till, 2007: 5). In order to better examine this subject I will compare four carefully selected projects from different countries and periods of the twentieth and twenty one century. My case studies are organised in chronological-ideological order. I want to show how did the approach to adaptive, flexible space was change in time, choose the best solution and try to find the way it could go now. Reason for this selection was also dictated by the possibility to emphasize contrast and diversity between each living space. A wide international extent of studies should not be a obstacle in criticising them fairly in terms of adaptive space. Solutions they provide are timeless, pioneering and free from cultural influences. Regarding to the structure of my essay I will start with a classic example from the beginning of modern movement in world architecture. E.1027 personal house designed by Eileen Gray and Jean Badovici 1926- 1929 Cap Martin, France. In this project flexibility is obtained by creating an open plan where furniture and architecture are integrated and where one can dispose of multiple uses of each space (Constant, 2000: 95). The second example is an experimental Diagoon Housing designed by Dutch architect Herman Hertzberger in 1969-1970 Delft, Holland. The main idea of this project was based on the theory of half-product and architects own theory called polyvalence (Schneider, Till; 2007: 82). The next project is an attempt to find future way of living. Final Wooden House by Sou Fujimoto created in 2008 Kumamoto, Japan, is a conceptual, indeterminate wooden structure. The design idea was strongly connected with architect manifest called Primitive Future (Fujimoto, 2008). The last project show a completely different mentality about domestic environment and role of the user (Hill, 2007: 53-55). Peter Eisenmans innovative House VI built in 1972-1975 Cornwall, Connecticut, USA. I saved this example for the end of essay, to better emphasize differences amid other houses in creating space. The first chapter of my essay will objectively describe Grays, Hertzbergers and Fujimotos projects one by one: brief history, description of building, structure and main idea behind it. The second chapter will be more detailed in terms of quality of space. It will provide architects understanding of domestic architecture. Different approaches will be compared in terms of adaptability, flexibility. In addition to this it will be focus on users point of view, his changeable role in designed environment and opinions of other specialists. The third chapter will be more critique. It will describe opposite design ideas about living space applied on an example of House VI by Peter Eisenman. It will carefully explain the project and the quality of spatial conditions it provides. 4

Additionally, it will be taken into consideration the occupants opinion and his role in the designed environment. The conclusion will be a mutual assessment of projects. It will try to give an answer to what conditions should be fulfilled to create really adaptive and flexible space. Moreover I express my opinion about role of the user in each project and suggest the right way to think about our future domestic space. III- Architects and their projects To begin with, I would like to start by investigating projects from one of the most livable and flexible modern building of the beginning of twentieth century. Modern movement icon, E.1027. Personal house designed by Eileen Gray and Jean Badovici. This villa was Eileen Grays first finished architectural work. In spite of the fact that she was an successful interior and furniture designer, she was encouraged to transfer her interior designing ideas into architecture world by Romanian architect and editor Jean Badovici. Her future partner Badovici was also co-originator of villa, he assisted in technical matters and provided some conceptual inspiration, but most of the design decisions were left to Gray (Constant, 2000: 95-96). E 1027 was built in east Monaco, in a small village RoquerbruneCap-Martin on the Mediterranean coast between 1926 and 1929 the period of the Bauhaus by Walter Gropius, Villa Savoy by Le Corbusier, Schroder House by De Stijl and Barcelona Pavilion by Mies van Der Rohe (Gordon,2001:161-162). This forgotten relic of twentieth century modernism was designed as a maison minimum simple and efficient. Plan included 2,800 square feet of space- that is only little more than living room open on the Mediterranean Sea where each part fits perfectly together (Gordon, 2001: 160-162). Practical, versatile, private but convivial, villa E1027 had an open-plan living room with a panoramic terrace, outdoor kitchen and garden (Goodman, 2009).

1. E-1027 master floor plan

E1027 includes specific design elements that blurred the line between furniture and actual building- desks, tables, chairs and cupboards can be folded and slide from the houses walls. The living room opens onto a narrow balcony, equipped with screen like vertical windows capable of opening fully to provide sunlight and a large view. Additionally, partitions incorporating shelves, coat rack and umbrella stand blocks the view from the entry on sleeping alcove and adjoining shower/dressing area in far corner of the room and dining alcove near the stair, contribute plurality of use. The rest of the rooms were smaller but also had interlinking functions and each of them were related to private exterior, for the views and also had the option to extend the rooms volume (Constant, 2000: 95-96). This design allowed users to experience the dwelling as an open, flexible, organic whole, but at the same time Gray felt that each room should remain independent from others, maintaining a feeling of intimacy and privacy. Based on this idea she provided each sleeping space with independent access to the garden (Constant, 2000: 95-96,114-115). To better understand Grays design I should add that famous theory, especially in twenties, of functional machine Grays perceived different than well known Le Corbusier statement that the house is a machine to live in (Corbusier, 1923: 266). Gray disagreed with this dictum and revealed her own thinking about domestic space. She wanted to overcome Modern Movement spatial devices, associated with cold and inhuman abstract forms by engaging the subjective qualities of experience (Constant, 2000, 94).She rather described the house as a living organism, an extension of the human experience, stating that it is not a matter of simply constructing beautiful ensembles of lines, but above all, dwellings for people. Formulas are nothing, she insisted, "Life is everything. And life is simultaneously mind and heart" (Gray, 1929: 23). Next project that put emphasis on adaptive space is Diagoon Dwellings designed by Dutch architects Herman Hertzberger in 1971. Originally this project was proposed for a larger neighborhood which was never built. In the end eight prototype houses were built in Delft (Hertzberger, 1987: 72).

2. axonometric view of Diagoon dwellings

This project was based on the idea of half-product, meaning that the basic frame of a house could be filled by users and leaves space for personalized interpretation in terms of number of rooms, positioning and functional uses. The inhabitants themselves are able to decide how to divide and organize the space they live in, where they will sleep and eat. If in the future the composition of family changes, the house will adjusted to the certain extent enlarged. This potential was obtained by two fixed cores, one contains the staircase and other one kitchen and bathroom on different levels, with several half-storey levels attached. Rooms and spaces around cores were left undefined indicating the inherent possibilities of the house (Schneider, Till; 2007: 82). To better describe the potential of the project Hertzberger devised 32 different layouts of space in the house (Baumeister, 1979, 45-46). A typical plan shows the building was sectioned into three planes. The first one can contain the entrance to the house, a workroom, storage and smaller or larger garage. Moving up a half storey, the kitchen is the major point but leaves the space around it for adaptation: where and how big a dining and living room is and how looks the relationship to a balcony. The third level is arranged around a bathroom having a space that can be divided into individual rooms or left open (Schneider, Till; 2007: 82). The principle of incompleteness is also continued on the outside of the buildings in undefined fence, space under terrace, roof terrace or tiny yard next to the entrance (Schneider, Till; 2007: 82).

3. Diagoon Dwellings ground, first and second floor plan with slack spaces

Eventually over time inhabitants of Diagoon Dwellings had filled this empty slack spaces. The building skeleton structure allows every kind of filling form masonry to glass (Baumeister, 1979: 46). One of the inhabitants create even a greenhouse on the roof terrace. This particular idea was not even predicted by the 7

architect himself. Furthermore this structure was dismantled after few years to create space for an additional penthouse room (Hertzberger, 1991, 160). That incident proved that despite their openness, the Diagoon Houses are not just neutral buildings that offer an infinite number of solutions (Schneider, Till; 2007: 82). They establish Hertzbergers belief that architect should not merely demonstrate what is possible, but also and especially indicate the possibilities that are natural in the design and within everyones reach( Hertzberger, 1959: 22). Moving forward in history, I would like to focus now on present projects. Sou Fujimoto belongs to the youngest generation of architects in Japan but his works are already recognizable all around the world. That is because even if there are rather small scale projects, his works always question the essential meaning of architecture. What it really is, and how it relate to the nature. For Fujimoto talking about architecture is synonymous with talking about the world (Ito, 2010 :4). For the first time he had the opportunity to transfer his ideas into reality, when he had won a competition run by Kumamoto Artpolis in 2005, with his experimental Final Wooden House. The competition, with Toyo Ito as judge, was for entrants under 35 years old. The house was to be built all in timber, because this material could be freely provided by client Kumamura Forestry Association ( Sumner, 2008: 70).

4. Final wooden house Sou Fujimoto Architects 2008

Thanks to wood versatility it could be used in the project almost in every part of structure, from foundation, exterior wall, interior wall, flooring, ceiling, insulation, furniture, stairs to doors and window frames. If this material is so multifunctional, then conversely it should be capable to create architecture that fulfills all functions in one process, and in one way of using woods (Fujimoto, 2008). Based on this idea house is created as an 8 m cube consisting of nothing but stacked 35 cm-square wooden blocks, it could be called a minimum space for human habitation 8

In other words in more descriptive way interior space has been obtained by scooping out wooden blocks from inside the cube. That is because the interior space is a continuous stepped, spiral that twists upward from the entrance, with the floor, wall, roof. All the architectural components such as stairs and furniture are assembled from same-sized pieces of wood (Ito, 2010, 4) There are no typical plans or sections, with the spatial configuration changing every 35mm (Clark, 2008). The openings are nothing more than areas where wooden pieces are missing. This is a cave created by scooping out pieces of wood. It is no more than the act of reducing a house to its most primitive state by erasing the architectural components (Ito, 2010, 4).

5- Final wooden house model, Sou Fujimoto Architects 2008

IV-Typology of spaces The key connection between these projects and architects is that they focused mainly on adaptability or flexibility and users experiences in the designed living space. However each of them present different typology of space to achieve their aim. There are obviously much more examples now of flexible housing and how it may be achieved. In the few analysed cases I tried to briefly present this most characteristic and diverse types of this kind of spaces. In the first example, E1027 villa, the integration of furniture and architecture facilitated multiple use of each space. The space could constantly change thanks to the movable and sliding elements. (Caroline Constant, 2000: 95-96). This kind of flexibility Adrian Forty identifies as flexibility by technical means and define two types: an intricate element with limited range of configurations, and a regular structure with lightweight, uniform demountable floor, wall and ceiling panels. (Hill, 2007: 32). The Grays project represents the first category. In terms of 9

technology, it is very similar to another famous example from those times ,Schroder House. In this house built in Utrecht in 1924 by Gerrit Rietveld, folding walls allow the first floor to be a single space or a series of smaller rooms. Furniture fixed in external walls defined the function of each part of ground floor. Both houses represent types of flexibility when only a limited degree of user freedom is provided for the reason that the occupant can select from a range of configurations defined by the architect. The user was able to have more influence on the physical changes by interaction with movable elements but the architect still largely defined the character of the house (Hill,2007: 32-33). Nevertheless, E1027 represents also a different type of the design. The most important place and principal adaptive space in E1027 was the spacious multipurpose living room that was simultaneously wardrobe, dining area, bedroom, bar and the guest room (Kronenburg, 2007: 25) This open room suggests a loose fit between space and use and it also represents flexibility by open plan. In E1027 and Schroders House the relationship between the designated spaces are variable. Activities change from sleeping to eating, dinning to bathing, washing to working. The flexibility of the house lies in its ability to accommodate changing relationships between events, context and use of the space (DeGory, 1998: 10). Thus, unlike flexibility by technical means, change of use is less dependent on physical transformations of the building but rather depend on the change of the perception of the user (Hill, 2003: 37). The E1027 house is clearly designed in modernist canon, but it represents different way in which the inhabitant would interact with domestic environment (Kronenburg, 2007: 24-25).Sitting, relaxing, reading, eating, conversing, entertaining, washing, dressing and sleeping- this functions related to body and mind were obtained by novel solutions in furniture and fittings which exploited compactness, versatility, respect for function, practicality, and what in a later jargon be called userfriendliness (Garner, 1993: 29-30). It was architecture that concentrated on human experience as a primary generator in creating form (Kronenburg 2007, p.24-25).

6. E1027 multi-purpose living room

10

In the mid-twentieth century reactions to functionalism focused mainly on flexibility. Flexibility meant a hope to save functionalism from determinist excess by introducing time, and the unknown. Against the belief that all parts of building should be destined for specific uses, a recognition that not all uses could be foreseen at the moment of design made flexibility a desirable architectural property (Forty, 2000: 142). However, over the years theories about adaptability and flexibility in architecture started to change. In 1960 Dutch architect Herman Hertzberger began a forceful criticism of flexibility (Hill, 2003: 44). He says Although a flexible set-up admittedly adapts itself to each change as it presents itself, it can never be the best and most suitable solution to any one problem; it can at any given moment provide any solution but the most appropriate one. Flexibility therefore represents the set of all unsuitable solutions of a problem (Hertzberger, 1991: 146) . Hertzberger criticism is particularly directed against the neutral spaces associated with flexibility by technical means through demountability, and moving elements like in the Retvield-Schoder House, Maison de Verre or Grays E1027. Instead of flexibility he, proposes polyvalence (Hill, 2003: 44). He defines it as a form that can be used in different ways and for every purpose without changing itself, and with minimal flexibility allows an optimal solution (Forty ,1998: 3). Therefore his theories about adaptability and flexibility in domestic architecture was tested seriously in 1971 when he designed prototype Diagoon Dwellings. The design of houses provide an alternative to how dwellings and adaptability are usually conceived, handing over the power of design to the occupant.

7. few drawings from 32 different layouts devised for Diagoon dwellings by Hertzberger

11

To provoke users to transform a building, Hertzberger uses two principal strategies: polyvalence and incompletion. Although, he criticizes functionalism he also suggests a certain sympathy for functionalist attempts to define use (Hill, 2003: 47).Instead of attributing a single use to an element, like in functionalism he prefers to have one element suited to many uses.. However polyvalence is similar to flexibility by open plan when the change of use can result from a change of perception, or life, of the user rather than just from direct change in the form of building (Hill, 2003: 48). However the user involved in polyvalence environment should bemantally an phisically creative. Creative mentally to find personal use in each space, physically because incompletion of houses suggests also constructional and conceptual user creativity (Hill, 2003: 48) So big demands to an occupant without proper stimulus from architect could result in sorts of paralysis(Herzberger,1991,146147) This approach create the tension between architectural intent and user control (Schneider, Till; 2007: 82). When we try to understand Fujimoto radical experiments with domestic space we have to focus on his Primitive Future manifest. He explains his apprehension of living space by giving two examples- nest and cave. For author these two cases are embryonic states of architecture. Nest is the place where person or animal live in very well prepared, described, hospitably arranged and functional space. This is a sort of allegory of modernistic understanding of space. Cave in contrast is a raw, formless space where people need to explore and find their own way to comfortably interact with it (Fujimoto, 2008). When people went into the cave they rediscover how to inhabit this geographic environment. Therefore some of the hollows could seems to look like appropriate for sleeping, height seems perfect for eating and these more private niches are good to place in them personal things. This way people start to gradually inhabit these environment. In other words cave rather than functional is a stimulating place in which various activities are enabled. Each next day people could discover new usage for each place (Fujimoto, 2008: 130). Fujimoto thinks that future architecture should comprise cave-like places rather than nest. The Japanese architect is wondering if it is possible to create artificial cave made by people. The big question is whether something that is naturally created, like cave, without purpose, or something that exceeds purpose, could be made intentionally (Fujimoto, 2008: 130). The Final wooden house is an attempt to test this idea in reality. In this house floor levels are relative and reinterpret the space according to where users are and what they want to do. People are three dimensionally distributed in space and will experience new sensations in various depths, nooks, niches and ledges (Fujimoto, 2008)

12

8. Fujimoto examples of cave and nest like space, Primitive` Future 2008

` This kind of stepped space was a long fascination for the architect as a sort of spatial relativity and a new sense of various distances unachievable by coplanar floors (Fujimoto,2008). This project presents an architecture which provides such rich spatial feelings that they cannot be experienced by drawings or photographs. This architecture is manifested and sensed with entire body. However it is not so obvious that such moments are frequent when visiting architecture. They are rather rare. Fujimotos architecture is one of the few examples that always refer to the whole of the body (Ito, 2010: 4). On the other hand, this experimental project involves risks. Even in the mountains, people from modern society will always demand the same quality of living spaces like in a safe, functional metropolis. He might have decided to take up the challenge of the obsessive homogeneity of the modern dwelling. Under these harsh and ascetic conditions, this project just barely becomes a living space. The structure of the bungalow for example might leak and the internal space is certainly cramped to the utmost. You cannot move unless you twist your body. But even here, by wonderfully establishing the limits of proximity between people and nature, he has succeeded in enriching this small space (Ito, 2010:4-5)

13

9. Final wooden house interior scheme

10-11 Final wooden house interior 2008

V- Space against user It is hard to deny that the architects designs analyzed in previous chapters were right. Therefore, next architect and his theories about domestic space need separate chapter to emphasize and proof his mistakes in designing hospitable living space (Gutman, 2010: 120 ). American architect Peter Eisenman states that the project of modernity should be abandoned because it suppresses all theories, peoples and events that do not conform to its principles of universality and rationality (Eisenman, 1984: 154). To better comprehend design of Eisenman I will remind Anthony Vidler opinion. In the beginning of 1970s, the loss of the faith in the project of modernity resulted in criticism of the humanist and factionalist bodies of authority and social processing. According to this opinion the single male body, the model for design from Renaissance to Le Corbusier, is racist and sexist, while functionalism is oppressive because it denies the immeasurable and subjective. (Vidler, 1991: 3). According to this statement Eisenman proposes form against function instead form follows function attitude. However the main dissimilarity between his way of thinking and 14

previous architects in essay was that Eisenman do not make distinction between function and use (Hill, 2003: 53). Suzanne Frank, was an architectural academic and Dick Frank, was a regular photographer of Eisnemans buildings and great admirer of the architects work despite of previously being known as a paper architect and theorist. They wanted a country house where they could spend weekends and vacations (Frank, 1994, 51). By giving Eisenman a chance to put his theories to practice, one of the most famous, and difficult, houses emerged in the United States. Built in 1976 in Cornwall, Connecticut, House VI is the sixth house by Eisenman. House stands as a sculpture in its forest surroundings (Archdaily, 2010) and you can not tell what is hidden behind each intricate elevation (Eisenman, 1987:179,181).

12-13- House VI by Peter Eisenman

The design emerged from a conceptual process and like in his others house projects he began with a grid. Eisenman manipulated the grid in such a way so that the house was divided into four sections (Archdaily, 2010). Consequently the building exists as both an object and a kind of cinematic manifestation of the transformational process. Thus completed house become itself a record of design process (Eisenman, 1987:178). As a result of this structural elements, were revealed so that the construction method was evident, but not always understood (Archdaily, 2010). The house became a study between the actual structure and architectural theory. Even in its first drawings it had no bedroom. Bed was placed in a closet, to be rolled out at night. Eventually when there was a bedroom it did not have any doors or any enclosure for auditory and visual privacy. Furthermore there was glass slot in the center of the wall continuing through the floor dividing bedroom in a half, forcing there to put two separate beds so the couple was forced to sleep apart from each other (Eisenman, 1994: 110). There are also many other difficult details that disrupt conventional living, such as the column hanging over the dinner table that separates diners and the single bathroom that is only accessible through a bedroom. Another curious aspect is an upside down red painted staircase which do not have any function beside dividing space and drawing attention or ridiculous column in the kitchen. It hover over the 15

kitchen table without any structural role and does not even touching the ground. The house was efficiently constructed using a simple post and beam system. However some columns or beams play no structural role, like this in the kitchen, and are incorporated only to enhance the conceptual design. In other spaces, beams meet but do not intersect, creating a cluster of supports. Basically Eisenman created spaces that were quirky and well-lit, but rather unconventional to live with(Archdaily, 2010). This house questioned the idea of inhabiting, or habitation as a habit. In short nothing about the house function conformed to the existing typology of country house (Eisenman, 1994: 110). Eileen Grays statement, perfectly answers this problem. She believed that exterior of form can lose itself in play of light, volumes and divisions but interior should still respond to mans needs and always be submit to individual life (Gray,1929:23). That was obvious but as we know intentional mistake of Eisenmans project. A building which is not designed according to function, gives no clues about how it should to be occupied, it reject function and flexible space. It ignores the traditional ideas of comfort associated with domesticity (Hill, 2003, 55). Eisenmans friend from collage Robert Gutman was not a fan of House VI either and criticizes it in one of his articles. He wrote that house VI is not a place for family and it is annoying to live in even for short periods of time (Gutman, 2010: 120 ). In 1990 the clients initiated the renovation of House VI because the construction caused the house to leak, and at the same time they wished to transform elements of house inconsistent with their daily life (Hill, 2003: 54).

14- ground and second floor plan of House VI

16

One of the owners and occupants Suzanne Frank wrote the book about house and her impression about it called Peter Eisenmans House VI. The clients response. She wrote that the one of the most inconvenient element in Eisenmans design was the slot in bedroom floor, which sliced right through the middle of their bed. That forced a married couple to sleep in separate beds, which was not their custom. Eventually they lived with twin beds for many years until renovation in 1990 ,when they resolved the situation by introducing a large bed that bridged the floor slot (Frank, 1994: 60). House VI is a provocative to the user similar to that in Hertzberger work. Although, in Diagoon Dwellings architect rather motivate and encourage users attempts to domesticate living space he design. Eisenman, on the other hand, suggest that the most gratifying building is the one that is hardest to use. Instead of user-friendliness like in Grays or Hertzbergers works we could say that he prefers user-hostility (Hill, 2003, 55). In my view the case of House VI should be interpreted as a warning to architects how not to design domestic space. We have to be aware that each of us have different, personal spatial habits that describe our own interaction with domestic environment. Sometimes we are not even conscious about these habits which describes our spatial behavior (Lym, 1980: 40-47). Following that thought we could partially agree with Hertzbergers opinion that we never really know what each person wants for himself, no one will ever be capable to invent for other perfect dwelling. Even when people built their own houses they were not free either, because every society is more or less dependent on basic pattern to which members are subservient. People are doomed to be as others wants to see them. But architects should at least be free in giving his personal interpretation to the collective pattern( Hertzberger,1991, 158-159).

15. House VI bedroom slot

16. Upside down staircase and structure detail

17

VI- Conclusion The previous chapters show different types of flexible and adaptive domestic space in terms of case studies I presented. One shows also the opposite, and in my honest opinion, a bad example of static ,uncomfortable and too complicated living environment. But for now to sum up the subject let we focus on this proper approach to the problem. Each of these projects is a little bit different in terms of the purpose it was designed for. From pioneering personal house at the sea, experimental terrace housing pattern for a large neighborhood, radical wooden structure bungalow to complicated conceptual country house. In spite of this differences all mentioned architects, instead of Eisenman, respect functionalism but suggest different type of user attitude then functionalism passivity and obedience. However in some way there are continuation of functionalism in that it assumes that the architect can cater for the future needs of the user. The principle of this houses is that they can absorb, or adapt to reflect, changes in use (Hill, 2003, 30). In their design and humanistic approach they are rather focus on users freedom instead of creating fancy forms. Unfortunately in most cases architects, collectively as a professional body attempting to monopolize a practice, often devalue role of the user for reasons of self-protection (Hill, 2003: 30). According to the previous summary it seems, that one of the most significant component of the successful flexible/adaptive domestic architecture is not only a dynamic space that offer a lot of possibilities but a space that could indicate this possibilities and accommodate user participation in designed environment. This well designed environment is created by architects who are aware of users presence, creativity and needs. They just recognize the influential role of inhabitants in the formulation of architecture (Hill, 2003: 30) In my opinion without this awareness, architects ideas are unsuccessful or even worthless. This kind of approach Is especially crucial in domestic architecture. Designer should reject the passive user and rather except response, interpretation and reaction to his design. The main fact confirming this opinion is that the houses are not just one or few time experience like museums, galleries and exhibit pavilions (Hill, 2003: 27). But which of this houses represent in the best way this kind of space quality and could give a clue how can we successfully create our future domestic architecture. Flexibility in E1027, in spite of date, is still giving us interesting solution to how this problem could be resolved. Movable elements and open plan are still main strategy to achieve flexibility in today architecture. But spatial flexibility based on movable architectural elements have boundaries and need constantly alert, a reactive user who will operate those elements to achieve require function or different layout of rooms. On the other hand, the open plan strategy need creative user for whom, transformation in understanding the space will not be a problem, such as renaming 18

space or in juxtaposition to a space taking guests in bedroom or making picnic in the bathroom. Moreover this type of space create problems with privacy, and psychic enclosure between users. In comparison with the open plan and flexibility by technical means the user involved in Hertzberger polyvalence and incompletion, are taking responsibility for creating his own environment, only subconsciously stimulated by architect. This approach is still repeated sometimes in our times, usually with satisfying result. But unfortunately we have to be aware that finding a balance in this strategy is risky. The architect should be aware that some of the users could not be as creative or active as the others in redesigning theirs space or just too inert to do so essential changes. Finally, I find it difficult to reach a conclusion but I am tempted to say, that in my opinion the most promising, but also the most challenging type of space or approach, that shows possibilities of future designing domestic space is the last, most primitive architecture, Final Wooden House. This formless cave like space is formally static but in at the same time incredibly dynamic in terms of use and adaptation. Furthermore it includes itself some aspects of previous types of spaces. It is also one open space like Living room in E1027 but thanks to difference levels, depths and niches it provide also certain level of user privacy. It is noticeable sort of similarity in treating furniture. In Grays villa there were blurred and integrated with living space. Eileen Gray also analyzed the functions of the body and mind to provide all necessary basic needs in most compact form (Garner, 1993: 29-30). In Fujimotos proposal all the structure and interior space of the house is simultaneously a kind of adaptable furniture itself. On the other hand Final Wooden House provides also indeterminate spaces like in Hertzberger polyvalence theory but only in terms of use, not incompletion of structure. Additionally if we reconsider this time House VI and its conceptual and structural character we could also refer to Fujimoto work. Both projects offer quite rigid and raw space but with this difference that the Japanese architect in his experiment do not reject user needs and give him a chance to discover most appropriate function in each place. To conclude with, this project provides difficult and austere space but one which opens up the way we might think about domestic environment. It is trying to find new, changeable landscape of habitation. It develops approaches to flexible space through the ideas of primitive place for human habitation before human (Clark,2008). Moreover this way of thinking is especially actually in our times, when world climate is changing and sustainability is now one of the main problems in modern architecture. I would like to end my essay with the architects own words describing his work. It is of primordial existence before architecture. That is to say, rather than new architecture, it seeks new conception, a new existence(Fujimoto, 2008) ()to create a more comfortable space, humans should adapt a bit more, rather than control(Fujimoto, 2008). 19

VII- Bibliography Books Alexander Christopher, Ishikawa Sara, Silverstein Murray,(1977) A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings , Construction, New York, Oxford University Press Allen Stan, Davidson Cynthia(2006)Tracing Eisenman: Peter Eisenman complete works London, Thames & Hudson Constant Caroline, (2000) Eileen Gray London, Phaidon DeGory Elinnor (1998) A Potential for Flexibility University College, London Eisenman Peter, Krauss Rosalind, Tafuri Manfredo (1987) Houses of Cards Oxford University Press Eisenman Peter (1994) Afterword, in Peter Eisenmans House VI: The Clients Response, 109110, Suzanne Frank, New York, Watson-Gupti ll Publications,. Forty Adrian, (2000) Words and Buildings London, Thames & Hudson Frank, Suzanne, (1994) Peter Eisenmans House VI. The clients response, New York, Watson-Gupti ll Publications Fujimoto Sou,(2008) Primitive Future, Tokyo, Inax Garner Philippe, (1993) Eileen Gray; Design and architecture 1878-1796 Benedikt Taschen, Koln Gutman, R. Cuff D. Wriedt J. (2010).; Architecture From the Outside In: Selected Essays by Robert Gutman Dana Cuff & John Wriedt,2010 New York Hecker Stefan, Muller Christian, (1993); Eileen Gray works and projects Editorial Gustavo Gili S.A. Barcelona Hertzberger Herman, (1991) Lessons for students in Architecture, Rotterdam, Uitgeverij 010 Hertzberger Herman,( 1987) Herman Herzberger 1959-86 Bauten und Projekte Den Haag, Nederland

20

Hill Jonathan, (2003) Actions in architecture: Architects and creative users, London, Routledge Hill Jonathan, (1998 ) Occupying architecture, Between the architect and the user, London, Routledge Kronenburg David,( 2007) Flexible: architecture that responds to change London Uk, Lawrence King Publishing Ltd Le Corbusier, (1923) Toward an Architecture; original title Vers une Architecture translated in English by John Goodman, 2007 Getty Research Institute Lym Glen Robert,(1980) Psychology of Building: How we shape and experience our structured spaces , New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Schneider Tatjana & Till Jeremy, (2007) Flexible Housing Oxford, Elsevier inc United Kingdom Journals Alastair Gordon, (2001) Utopia preserved p. 160-167 House & Garden, September author unknown,(1979) Diagoon-Hauser in Delft, p 45-46 Baumeister vol. 76, no. 1, Jan., p. 63-66 Grays description of E1027 LArchitecture Vivante, 1929, p.23. Toyo Ito, (2010) ,Theoretical and sensorial architecture: Sou Fujimotos radical experiments 2G p. 4-9 no. 50 Yuki Sumner (2008) Experimental house, Kumamoto, Japan , competition winning entry p. 70-71 Architectural review. Special issue. Great Indoors vol. 224 no. 1339 Vidler Anthony(1991) The Building in Pain, p 3-10 AA Files, no. 19 Spring Internet resources Clark Justine, jury report, Final Wooden House winner of World Architecture Festival Barcelona 2008 in category Private House, date posted 23 October 2008. Accessed 31 Jan 2011 <http://www.worldarchitecturefestival.com/newsdetail.cfm?newsId=49 .>

21

Fujimoto Sou interview with Designboom Fujimoto Architects office in Tokyo, October 31st, 2008. www.designboom.com <http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/sou_fujimoto.html> Accessed 25 Oct 2011 Fujimoto Sou Description of Final Wooden House, World Architecture Festival Barcelona2008 Accessed 31 Jan 2011 http://www.worldbuildingsdirectory.com/project.cfm?id=1035 Saieh , Nico . "Final Wooden House / Sou Fujimoto 23 Oct 2008. ArchDaily. Accessed 10 Dec 2010. <http://www.archdaily.com/7638> Perez , Adelyn . AD Classics: House VI / Peter Eisenman 04 Jun 2010. ArchDaily. Accessed 27 Jan 2011. <http://www.archdaily.com/63267> Goodman Lanie Travel Fall (2009) Building Mystery: How Eileen Gray minimalist masterpiece was almost lost to history. available online Accessed 23 October 2010 http://www.e1027.org/index.php?/about/press/

22