1st Vignette & Ritualised Space Versus Flexibility

vignette_01(terror) inside the bedroom?

Ritualised Space Versus Flexibility

Dwelling as well as production spaces share an ever-increasing need for spatial and programatic flexibility. However, as production is also adapting to this principle, one could argue, that the concept of domesticity remains dependent on home as a space of ritual.

The home of the future must therefore be able to do both: allow for a rigours ritual programming as well as immediate flexibility. In the typical suburban house this differentiation is already been made between garage/shed and domestic spaces.

If the garage (without cars but many cool tools) became core of the house with all other program wrapped around it, the house could eventually facilitate two interlacing modes of inhabitation, which occasionally cross or even happen in the very same space…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to 1st Vignette & Ritualised Space Versus Flexibility

  1. Catarina Cruz says:

    Groovy!
    however if i may …the woman looks too big in relation to you..maybe check the perspective… not sure if u need to be bigger or her smaller… and i dont know why u blurred her…if it s about the nakedness i dont think u should blur…
    otherwise…cool!

    • Catarina Cruz says:

      actually it would be cool if she was a bit further back and her ass could be reflected on that mirror leaning against the wall… :P

  2. Felix Brinkhege says:

    haha thanks, i thought of the same thing but then i have to put the mirror in another place and that fucks up the composition but ill see what i can do :)

  3. Sasha Alexander Zhukov says:

    Sounds cool, but would you in effect have to programme flexibility?

  4. Sasha Alexander Zhukov says:

    I think it’s Richard Sennett (whom I’m reading now) who said that modern buildings are so tightly fit for purpose that they cannot be adopted to other uses, so the life expectancy of modern buildings is dropping dramatically – to around 35 years for a skyscraper, whereas the 19th century skyscrapers of New York can still be re-appropriated. Whether that’s good or bad is just a matter of opinion, but if you are proposing to (or are going to have to) programmatise or systematise (think of the distinction) the flexibility of space, you’d be working towards making the suburban house ‘more tightly fit for purpose’ — which would lead to a higher pace of change in the suburbs. A volatile suburb could be cool, with continuous reinvention – which could maybe lead to finally opening up the opportunities for a reinterpretation between city and countryside. Traditionally the suburbs remain a solid framework and people flow through fluidly, generations move in and out. Is linking that fluidity (and volatility) to the built environment a good thing to do? Maybe you should introduce a viewpoint on society into the argument. If you were proposing to keep the garage as the non-place it is now, then I can’t imagine why you would put it in the centre of the house, but I’m sure you’d make it cool… ;)

    Oh and as I see it – a programme is a one off function (that can perhaps be changed), whereas a system is a framework that is more likely to be adopted to new requirements, rather then fundamentally changed. The problem with systems is that their evolution normally focuses on optimisation – which adds layers of technical complexity to the system, making it increasingly binding at the fundamental level – and fundamentally challenging innovation becomes less probable.

    • Sasha Alexander Zhukov says:

      oh whoops instead of ‘Is linking that fluidity (and volatility) to…’ I should have said: Do you want the house to become adaptable to the family or to society, presuming that the productive flexibility would allow people to live in the suburbs for longer periods in their life. That is also a distinction to make – is the current idea of the garage as a flexible space referring to new families moving in or the family expanding? I would argue it is more the case in the UK that it is adaptable to the new family – and thus ‘society’.

  5. Felix Brinkhege says:

    thanks Sasha! I wasn’t actually sure if suburbia should be my site/field of interest but it could be cool, since its rather unusual. “The garage” is kind of a place holder cuz i havent found a better way to describe it… multipurpose/transformational space sounds wrong somehow. I think for now i will focus more on the band of ritual spaces and leave it open what that its core might become…