JBCPR  Vol.1 No.3 , September 2013
Interpretable Housing for Freedom of the Body: The Next Generation of Flexible Homes
Abstract: If we have gone through the first generation of housing design that pursued functional optimization, ergonomics, and circulation efficiency during the last century, now we are living in the second generation where more advanced goals, such as universal design, ubiquitous design, sustainable design, and environment-friendly design, are emphasized. Although this second generation of design focuses upon the wellness of humans in accordance with environment, it still has the attitude that a more precisely designed home can guarantee a better life. What lacks in this approach is the freedom of the body; it needs to make its own choice as to how to use a space. Thus, it is suggested in this paper that what is important in designing a home is to provide alternatives in daily lives so as to make a full exploration of a given space. These alternatives can be made by offering residents an interpretable space where they can figure out space usages and routs in a constantly changing context. Two spatial devices are discussed in depths as a way to realize this interpretable house: room-to-room enfilade and ring spatial structure. By investigating some existing house plans, it is illustrated how they can guarantee the freedom of the body, and thus alternatives for the flexible domestic life.
Cite this paper: Seo, K. and Kim, C. (2013) Interpretable Housing for Freedom of the Body: The Next Generation of Flexible Homes. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research, 1, 75-81. doi: 10.4236/jbcpr.2013.13011.

[1]   A. Ravetz, “The Place of Home: English Domestic Environments, 1914-2000,” E & FN Spon, London, 1995, pp. 166-167.

[2]   S. Muthesius and M. Richardson, “Continuity and Change,” The Transformable House, John Wiley & Sons Limited, Hoboken, 2000.

[3]   B. Leupen, “Towards Time-Based Architecture,” 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2005.

[4]   S. Pikusa, “Adaptability,” Architecture Australia, Vol. 72, No. 1, 1983, pp. 62-67.

[5]   R. J. Lawrence, “Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice,” John Wiley & Sons Limited, Hoboken, 1987.

[6]   N. J. Habraken, “The Structure of the Ordinary,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998.

[7]   G. Barbey, “Social Space in Residential Environments: the Importance of Spatial Archetypes and Their Implication for Design,” Progetto Finalizzato Edilizia, Milano, 1992.

[8]   R. Evans, “Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays,” Architectural Association Publications, London, 1997.

[9]   F. Bijdendijk, “Solids,” In: B. Leupen, Ed., Time Based Architecture, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2005.

[10]   K. W. Seo, “The Law of Conservation of Activities in Domestic Space,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, pp. 21-28.

[11]   S. Kim and Y. Park, “Inflexible Pattern of Apartment Unit Plan: The Comparative Analysis of the Public and Private Sector Apartment-III,” Journal of Architectural Institute of Korea, Vol. 8, No. 7, 1992, pp. 73-83.

[12]   K. W. Seo, “Space Puzzle in a Concrete Box: Finding Design Competence That Generates the Modern Apartment Houses in Seoul,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2007, pp. 1071-1084.

[13]   B. Leupen and H. Mooij, “Housing Design: A Manual,” NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2012.

[14]   T. Schneider and J. Till, “Flexible Housing,” Architectural Press, Oxford, 2007.