THEME DESCRIPTION
It is generally thought that the plan is a means for describing lifestyle. The fundamental principle of this descriptive technique is division. It is thought that the lifestyle inside a house is divided with the device of “walls.” Therefore, if only the elements called “walls” are picked out, and given an expression in which they
are emphasized, people may understand the lines on a drawing that indicate the “walls” as describing
the essence of a house. Yet should a house be “walls”? Why can we not describe a house just by furniture? Why can we not describe a house just by tableware? Or what about a descriptive method using only floor textures? As the floor is the only component that the human body directly touches (actually, there are
also doorknobs and toilet seats), if we were to describe a house by a technique of scanning with the body, the house would be described as a collection of textured floors. Or it would also be possible to describe a house in terms of air temperature, or in terms of malodorous places due to wind flows. Why have I become so skeptical with regard to the descriptive method of walls? It is because I feel a sense of unease with the division of lifestyle, and the corresponding methods of spatial division. The cause might lie in devices such as mobile phones, which invalidate spatial divisions, and might also lie in the transformation (the becoming-amorphous) of interpersonal relationships and family relationships. Or, perhaps the “lifestyle” of the person that was the initial premise for the “division of lifestyle” disappears during the era of building a house. Because a person perhaps builds a house for somewhat distinct purposes, if this is investigated more
thoroughly, the house, including every “thing,” rather than being something made for some particular purpose could also be said to somehow become a manifestation of its era. Taking a broad view of all
of this, I am interested in a plan-less condition.
-Kengo Kuma
Perspective 1
In the attempt to achieve a plan-less condition, we decided to completely remove the interior walls therefore rendering the structure without massive spatial division, throwing away ‘rooms’, giving way to ‘locations’ being a more flexible space which Sou Fujimoto refers to as “Space of no intention” which we interpret as
spaces without clear definition since the type of activity the space contains is not yet clear. In our opinion, a ‘space of no intention’ only needs a ‘catalyst’ to encourage certain activities, and ultimately defining the location. Rendering it no longer as ‘space of no intention’ but ‘space of intention’ in fact, the possibility exists for the space to become ‘space with many intentions’ depending on the dimensions of its catalysts which in the case of housing are known as furniture. As we have discovered, the larger the size of the catalyst, the greater the activities may vary.
Perspective 2
An issue appears due to the removal of massive space dividing elements known as walls, and that issue happens to be an issue of privacy. As a solution towards the issue, we decided to apply different elevation levels to each location, dividing it by raising and / or lowering each location relative to the other. In this case we divided the locations by simply raising each location relative to the other, rotating the spatial zoning practically ninety degrees, zoning vertically rather than horizontally which is mostly done with housing projects. The public zone, is located at the very bottom since this is the zone in which various people have access to within it contains locations for living / gallery, and the kitchen. Above this zone, is the semi-public within it the group of people that have access are narrowed down. Locations in it are those such as : dining, and living. Then comes the semi-private zone, where the narrow group of people is narrowed down yet again to more specific groups of people. This level contains locations such as the sleeping area. Finally, located on the highest point is the private zone containing the bathing area. Philosophically speaking, we think that people are true human beings when they leave all their attributes behind – literally – no longer being the military general he / she may be, or the businessman / career woman they may also be. Just human, simple and pure. Therefore this highly valued state is located in the highest
point within the house.
-Prananda Navitas & Endy Y. Prasetyo
