Freedom of space

7/21/2019 Freedom of space

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/freedom-of-space 1/47

Freedom of Space 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................................... 41.1 ABSTRACT: ................................................................................................................ 4

1.2 INTRODUCTION: ...................................................................................................... 4

1.3 AIM: ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 OBJECTIVE: ............................................................................................................... 5

1.5 SCOPE: ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.6 METHODOLOGY: ...................................................................................................... 6

1.7 LIMITATION: ............................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 THE EVOLUTION ...................................................................................................... 7

2.2 THE PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 10

2.3 MODERN CONTEST ............................................................................................... 11

2.3.1 FLEXIBILITY ..................................................................................................... 12

2.3.2 ADAPTATION ................................................................................................... 14

2.3.3 TRANSFORMATION ........................................................................................ 14

2.3.4 INTERACTION .................................................................................................. 15

2.4 FREEDOM OF SPACE ............................................................................................. 15

2.4.1 THE BOX HOUSE ON A CLIFF ....................................................................... 18

2.4.2 OPEN PLAN ....................................................................................................... 19

CHPTER 3 .......................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 LITERATURE CASE STUDY .................................................................................. 22

3.1.1 ROOF HOUSE – TAKAHARU TEZUKA ......................................................... 22

3.1.2 SCHRODER HOUSE - GERRIT RIETVELD ................................................... 29

3.2 LIVE CASE STUDY ................................................................................................. 40

3.2.1 SREEPADHAM PALACE – TRIVANDRUM .................................................. 40

CHAPRER 4 ....................................................................................................................... 45

4.1 GUDELINES ............................................................................................................. 45

4.2 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 46

CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................... 47

5.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 47

Department of Architecture, R.I.T, Govt. Engineering College, Kottayam.



Freedom of Space 2

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Evolution (courtesy: paydayloans.social) ............................................................... 7

Figure 2: Ancient shelter (courtesy: www.natureskills.com) ................................................ 8

Figure 3: Evolution of house (courtesy; www.zipmatch.com) .............................................. 9

Figure 4: kerala traditional house (courtesy: keralaculture.com) ....................................... 11

Figure 5: Siedlung Brombeeriweg, Zürich, Switzerland (architect: EM2N Architekten,

2003). Twenty-five scenarios show the variability in plan can be achieved through the

internal rearrangement of walls. This potential makes it possible for the owner (courtesy:

http://journals.cambridge.org)............................................................................................ 13

Figure 6: Container house (courtesy: www.archdaily.com) ................................................ 14

Figure 7 : Appartments (courtesy :www.googleimages.com) ............................................. 16

Figure 8:Farnsworth House / Mies van der Rohe / 1945-1950 ........................................... 17

Figure 9 : The box house plan (courtesy: www.tezuka-arch.com) ...................................... 18

Figure 10: Front view and back view (courtesy: www.tezuka-arch.com) ........................... 18

Figure 11: Interior (courtesy: www.tezuka-arch.com) ........................................................ 19

Figure 12: Plan libre (courtesy:www.googleimages.com) ................................................... 19

Figure 13: Villa savoye (courtesy: http://tanishaameen.blogspot.) .................................... 20

Figure 14: Domino housing .................................................................................................. 20

Figure 15:Villa savoye (courtesy: http://tanishaameen.blogspot) ..................................... 21

Figure 16: Old house of the client (courtesy : CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary

Educational Facilities Award Ceremony and Commemorative Speech report) .................. 22

Figure 17: The roof house (courtesy: www.phaidonatlas.com) .......................................... 23

Figure 18: Dining area (courtesy; www.inhabitat.com) ...................................................... 24

Figure 19: The roof house (courtesy: www.pinterest.com) ................................................ 24

Figure 20: Roof house plan (courtesy: www.tezuka-arch.com) .......................................... 25

Figure 21:Roof house interior (courtesy:news.domain.com.au) ......................................... 26

Figure 22: Plan showing flexible space ................................................................................ 27

Figure 23: Section (courtesy:news.domain.com.au) ........................................................... 27

Figure 24: Ladder to the roof top(courtesy : CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary


Figure 25: Skylight and kitchen at roof top(courtesy : CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary


Figure 26: Roof top shower and skylight(courtesy : CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary


Figure 27:Gerrit Rietveld: Schroder House (courtesy: openbuildings.com) ........................ 29Figure 28: Prins hendriklaan (courtesy: www.maps.live.com) ............................................ 30




Freedom of Space 3

Figure 29: Side elevation (courtesy:

http://www.archinect.com/images/uploads/schroder.jpg) ............................................... 31

Figure 30:Ground floor plan ................................................................................................ 32

Figure 31:Upper floor interior view with partitions partially closed (courtesy:

Rietveld

Schroder House,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988, p. 10-11.) ................................................. 33

Figure 32;Upper floor interior view with partitions open (courtesy: Rietveld Schroder

House,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988, p. 10-11.) ................................................................. 33

Figure 33:First floor plan with partitions closed .................................................................. 34

Figure 34:First floor plan with partitions open .................................................................... 35

Figure 35:First floor with partitions open ............................................................................ 36

Figure 36:First floor with partitions open(courtesy: telegraph.co.uk) ................................ 37

Figure 37: First floor(courtesy: Rietveld Furniture and the Schroder House, The South

Bank Centre) ........................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 38:Ground floor plan showing circulation path ........................................................ 38

Figure 39:First floor plan showing flexible spaces ............................................................... 39

Figure 40:Sreepadham palace front view (courtesy: on site).............................................. 40

Figure 41:Sreepadham palace exterior view (courtesy : on site) ........................................ 41

Figure 42:wooden partition in sreepadham palace (courtesy : on site) ............................. 41

Figure 43:View of the sreepadham pond with sreepadham palace (courtesy

:www.old.kerala.gov.in) ....................................................................................................... 42

Figure 44:Sreepadham palace inner courtyard (courtesy : on site) .................................... 42

Figure 45:Sreepadham palace interior (courtesy : on site) ................................................. 43

Figure 46:Plan showing open and closed space in serrpadham palace .............................. 43

Figure 47:Circulation plan of Sreepadham Palace ............................................................... 44




Freedom of Space 4

CHAPTER 1

1.1 ABSTRACT:

We live in a society which changes rapidly. Earlier a house was designed for specific

user. But today build and sell houses are dominating the world. Houses became a

predesigned space were people are forced to accommodate.

A solution for such problems can be flexible designs with transformable spaces and

open plans. Such designs allow the user to modify the space with time and use.

This dissertation analyse the flexible house designs, open plans and the effective

traditional special distributions.

1.2 INTRODUCTION:

A large space could be divided into small divisions to suit nature of activities and

purpose. Functional requirements of different Space Dividing Elements are different,

depending on the space and the activities required to be segregated. Fixedarrangements will give proper privacy to individuals, but will act as physical and

visual barrier. Such arrangements will reduce human interaction and user freedom.

The user is forced to live according to the designed space.

In the case of apartments and villas which are made without considering the user and

his function, such fixed arrangements may not work properly. They only provide

basic requirements such as number of bedrooms, kitchen, living and dining space.

Such structure can’t adapt to the changing needs of the users.

Now architects are implementing flexibility, adaptability and open space to provide

freedom of space to the user. Thus buildings that can adapt to the changing needs of

user are designed. According Schneider and Till flexibility as accommodating change

in housing, addresses a number of issues related with the current and future needs of

the users. Firstly, it offers variety in the architectural layout of the units. Secondly, it

includes adjustability and adaptability of housing units over time. And finally, it

allows buildings to accommodate new functions. In order to provide flexibility,

architects should consider the possible future needs of users during the design

process. It points to freedom of choice.




Freedom of Space 5

There should be a dynamic condition which offers diversity. This allows a user or

inhabitant to manipulate or control that which the designer has provided. Such a

condition allows the individual to become engaged with or a part of the architecture.

1.3 AIM:

The aim of the dissertation is to study and analyse the user freedom in designed

space.

1.4 OBJECTIVE:

• To study about the effect of predesigned spaces in a changing society.

• To study about the importance of flexible spaces.

• To analyse the traditional way of special distribution.

• To study about open spaces and its importance on human interaction.

1.5 SCOPE:

We are in the time were our culture and lifestyle is undergoing rapid change. The

influence of western culture and architecture is the main reason for this. But whatever

happens the buildings and designed spaces will remain the same. There comes the

importance of flexible spaces; Spaces that can be modified in the future. The use oftemporary and movable partitions inside the house will help to transform the space.

Such spaces can adopt the changes.




Freedom of Space 6

1.6 METHODOLOGY:

1.7 LIMITATION:

The study is limited to the flexibility, human interaction, circulation and visual

transparency in designed houses. Live case study is limited to the state of kerala.




Freedom of Space 7

CHAPTER 2

2.1 THE EVOLUTION

From being merely a shelter, the design of a house has come to express ideas about

space, aesthetics, custom and culture. Thoughts and activities of our community have

been affected by increasing international communication. As a result new dimensions

of mobility and complexity in many science and education have been made by

human. While conceptual changes in Architecture are followed slowly, mobility and

flexibility can act as ideas of future architecture that would draw more attention. On

the other hand, unpredicted events (such as earthquake, floods, etc...) have always put

the residents threatened and the occurrences of such events are still expected. Short-

term housing procedure after disasters and use of some public buildings and places of

towns and villages as settlements and Treatment place are of the issues relatedadministrators and operators are facing with. Public and large buildings spaces would

better to be more flexible to use in emergency situations.

Figure 1: Evolution (courtesy: paydayloans.social)

When early human considered plains as hunting and agricultural purposes, he thought

of manufacturing a housing based on his own idea. Caves and trees are two main

paradigms in the nature as a human shelter. Hence trees and cave became ideas of

building wooden and hard stone shelters respectively. Human being alsodemonstrated considerable progresses in living and architectural evolution in a way




Freedom of Space 8

that gradually came up with the idea of utilizing bones and skins of huge animals

(such as mammoths) to build shelters flexibly opening or closing. Based on

abovementioned background it could be concluded that light weighted dynamic

structures have been created and utilized by human beings since long time ago.Structures involving light weight and mobility have been manufactures in various

forms using different materials and system. Tents, Black Tents, Arbor, Gazebo, and

Pergola … are such structures that have widely been used by nomads and Bedouins.

A house carried on back of a four-footed animal requires simple and genius

manufacturing procedure which is in result of hundreds or thousands years of

experience.

Figure 2: Ancient shelter (courtesy: www.natureskills.com)

Experience shows that man spends a substantial part of his lifetime in his house. As

per the estimate of E.E Wood (1940) "A man working 44 hours a week, 50 weeks in

an year, spends from the minimum of one- third to a maximum of substantially over

two-thirds of his time at home. " Illness or unemployment increases the fraction"'.

This manifests that a house is a part and parcel of man's life. Housing promotes

family formation. Family is a very important social institution whose important

missions is reproduction of human race, bringing up of children, provision of privacy

and emotional life and close personal relationship among the members. A child isgiven birth to a house where he normally spends his adolescent period. The location




Freedom of Space 9

influences the type of nurturing that he receives, the physical health he enjoys and the

mental experiences which will have far reaching influence on his adult personality.

Hence it is rightly said that the "man builds houses, but houses mould man". Thus

family formation and development of adult personality are reciprocal in nature, whichis one of the very vital functions of housing. Out of three prime necessities of life,

shelter is the most intricate and dedicates necessity as such it create more and more

complex problems. This is because of certain in built constraints which are particular

to housing is its immobile nature .It is also to provide the much needed social

infrastructure and security to man .The primitive men hardly different from animals

lived along the banks of rivers and hid on the tree tops when they saw ferocious and

large animals. The first home ever built by man was probably a shelter among the

rocks. Advancement of knowledge and civilization changed the concepts and

structure of houses. Now the sociological and biological factors are of great

importance in the construction of houses. Today the position of shelter is linked with

the improvement of the quality of life .It not only fulfils the need of housing but also

creates conditions conducive to the achievement of some important goals of

development such as improvement of health, sanitation, education and so on. Further,

the housing activity creates additional employment opportunities and induces

voluntary savings.

Figure 3: Evolution of house (courtesy; www.zipmatch.com)




Freedom of Space 10

2.2 THE PURPOSE

The word "housing" is understood narrowly to dwelling without regarding other

things which go to acceptable dwelling place in modem times' housing has broader

which include not only residential building but also its environment. Smith defines

housing unit as "a collection of facilities for the exclusive use of separate social group

called a household and that the set facilities involved in this concepts seems to

changing fairly predictable ways as general living standard rises.

A house to live in is one of the basic needs. It is fundamental for man's existence and

survival. Man is able to live only under the special environmental condition, which

determine his quality of lie. Climate changes beyond the adaptive capacity of man

destroy his resistive power and results in illness. The shelter requirements arose

because of this basic biological need. On satisfying his biological needs man also

attempted to satisfy his psychological needs for refuge for rest and reproduction.

The advancement of knowledge and civilization man became more concerned about

sanitation, environment, privacy happiness, health and location of this house. He

became more cognizant of better facilities, which make his life easy and enjoyable.

He began to bring electricity and induct toilets, equipment for interior entertainments

and various devices for sound sleep within the walls of the houses. Even though all

his efforts to bring various amenities within his access have made him to enjoy acomfortable life, these have led to the emergence of various psycho-social, economic

and environmental problems pertaining to housing.

As the facilities increased the privacy needs also increased. Humans evolved from a

time were a group of people lived inside a stone cave to the present situation where

each individual want their own living space. During this long period of evolution

mankind become more concerned about his privacy and self existence. He lost his

qualities such as sharing, intimacy, group work etc. At first man stayed in caves as a

group, when families evolved he built houses. At first houses were single spaces such

as temporary tents. Then he started to segregate the space inside the house. We

provided separate rooms for parents and children. By the influence of technology and

modern lifestyle the situation is such that everyone is confined into their own living

space, such as bedroom.

In olden houses each room had specific function, for example in the case of nalukettu

the bedrooms were only used for sleeping. The bedrooms were small and dark for

sleeping. But modern bedrooms are fully equipped with all the facility so that the user

can spend the whole day inside the room. This reduces the interaction between the

family members. Architects are responsible for this mess inside nuclear families.

Nuclear family is a new concept for us. We came from a joint family system were a




Freedom of Space 11

lot of people share a single building. But now we got separated from that system, and

what we do now is separating everyone in the family from each other. By using

public, semi private, private spaces inside our homes we are segregating space as well

as people. We are considering not only the people inside but also the public whileconstructing our house. For that we provide sit out, formal living for others inside our

homes. Then we give family living for us and segregate these spaces. If we look at

old nalukettu there was a poomukam for the guest. Once we enter into the building it

became family space. There is no other segregation among the family, only

segregation is according to the function. Hence modern homes should provide more

freedom to the user, it should not be concrete show piece to destroy family but a

quality space to bring them together.

Figure 4: kerala traditional house (courtesy: keralaculture.com)

2.3 MODERN CONTEST

Faced with urban densification and climate change, it is therefore crucial for us to beaware and be constantly reminded that urban housing will never lack of social,

environmental or economical issue and will undergo constant change. Robin Boyd

made a strong point, project homes with their lack of architectural input are ‘ugly’

and perhaps not the best solution, and however we must keep in considerations that

their success in providing a flexible and affordable solution for urban housing is

valid. As designers, we must consider our architectural planning from all aspects.

Designing flexibility and adaptability to accommodate change is certainly crucial in

architectural planning. The opportunities are endless.




Freedom of Space 12

Generally humankind possesses the greatest values that allow defining it as dynamic.

These are the abilities to pass on the accumulated knowledge from one generation to

the next, to embrace and solve the problems, its natural curiosity to explore, the

restless energy, and uncontrollable desire to achieve new goals. All the historical andcultural events that happened in the world known to us, and all that are to happen are

based on these qualities. Vladimir Lenin, Russian communist revolutionary and

political theorist said: “To live in a society and be free from a society is impossible”.

Indeed societies form the network of countries of the world where citizens are

organized into certain way of living, framed by set of rules and laws. But of course if

we compare the dynamic type of citizen to the static one, we could say that the static

type is content to live in a changeless environment. Traditions determine the way of

his living, his beliefs, and his production techniques, social and cultural activities.

Such societies can be remote tribal societies that are ignorant to any kind of

innovation and actually have no need or desire for it.

Today, the modern dynamic citizen finds himself in dynamic, ever changing

environment. By its nature, mankind has always been transient, to varying degrees

through the history. What has changed with the time, and what we can witness today

is the speed and scale at which the increasing restlessness occurs. In order for modern

architecture to serve the contemporary society, it must embrace and respond to the

state of constant transfer, exchange, relocation and adaptation, - the qualities evolved

by contemporary societies.

2.3.1 FLEXIBILITY

The concept of flexibility is an important concern in the design of housing. Flexibility

refers to the idea of accommodating change over time. Thus, flexible housing

corresponds to “housing that can adapt to the changing needs of users” (Till &

Schneider, 2005). The concept of flexibility is covered by the recent architecture,

although it is not a recent term, it has been used since the past times. Many dwellings,

which were built in the traditional methods, have flexible characteristics such as

multi-functionality, adaptability and variability.

In the past, people in both eastern and western societies shared the same dwellingcommonly with their families; hence different generations of the same family

inhabited and used the same houses. However, Industrial revolution and after it, the

Second World War made significant changes in many social structures, including

habitats. These changes also resulted in demographic transformation, accelerating

technological evolution and new life style tendencies. So, these changes necessitate a

new design paradigm in which, future dwellings need to be more adaptable to the

dynamic nature of people’s lives.




Freedom of Space 14

2.3.2 ADAPTATION

Charles Darwin said: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the mostintelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change”. One of the

most important lessons we can learn from nature is adaptability, it is ability to alter to

changes or be changed to fit current circumstances.

Adaptability in architecture is defined as an ability to recognise “(..) that the future is

not finite, that change is inevitable, but that a framework is an important element in

allowing that change to happen”

Adaptable buildings are designed to adjust to the different functions, defined by

users’ activities. Buildings, while having one distinct purpose, can operate for all kind

of different others. It is architecture that sometimes is called open building, with

loose-fit space that can be easily accommodated at the later stage. The open building

strategy considered the most formalized strategy for adaptable architecture. The

process of change can be continuous and ongoing, as it involves different participants

to interact in the design of desired space and at different times of building existence.

This process is seen as the most momentous attribute to adaptable architecture. The

flexibility of the possible layouts gives freedom for users and inhabitants to choose

own designer, and freedom for the designer to create the desired space the client

needs.

Figure 6: Container house (courtesy: www.archdaily.com)

2.3.3 TRANSFORMATION

“I want to reinvent the built environment in order to extend the reach of

consciousness.” In this way Michael Jantzen voiced his idea of transformation.

Transformable buildings are able to change their shape, space, appearance by the

physical alteration to their structural components, outer shell or internal surfaces.

”Truly transformable architecture [...] must enable a dramatic alteration in the

character of the whole architectural environment. [..] This is architecture that opens,

closes, expands or contracts.”




Freedom of Space 15

Introducing transformation characteristics to a stationary building brings something

magical about this performance – a building becomes kinetic at a touch of a button.

By simple or more complicated operation building changes its form and gives the

impression of being alive.The important additional aspect of transformable architecture is ability of the building

to interact with external environment and respond to climatic situations. Roofs,

windows or other parts of the facade can be opened for example for light or closed for

any other atmospheric reasons. This kind of control removes the barrier that buildings

usually have between inside and outside, and again contributes to environmental

sustainability.

2.3.4 INTERACTION

In an architectural world interactive architecture positioned as a type of architecture

that performs interaction between the building, people and appliances. It merges

physical interaction of environment with people and interactive design, where the

mind moves through abstract spaces. To a great extent, the interactive design depends

on the technological system employed in the creation of the interactive building.

Buildings “interact” when they respond to the user’s requirements in automatic or

intuitive ways, and when people become participants instead of users. Facades that

are programmed for change represent the process of creating dynamic spaces and

objects capable of performing a range of pragmatic and humanistic functions.

2.4 FREEDOM OF SPACE

Architects are the designers of life. They design buildings; it may be a living space or

a public space. He controls the function and quality of the space. A space can be used

in many ways, it depends upon the user. Still user has limits in a designed space.

Every house is designed by someone considering the function and lifestyle of its user.

But in modern society a lot of people are migrating to places for better job and

education. In such cases they will buy or rent some existing houses. They have no

other option. These houses may be build by someone for some other purpose. But

people are not concerned about the design. They will look mainly into the cost,

location and facility. Thus the user will adjust into the space which suits their current

requirement. This is what happening in our society. Even the culture and lifestyle of

people change, the building will remain same. There comes the importance of flexible

spaces.




Freedom of Space 16

Figure 7 : Appartments (courtesy :www.googleimages.com)

In the case of villas, apartments and living quarters the situation is worse. They are build and sell type of buildings. These buildings are not designed for any user. They

only provide basic facilities such as number of bedrooms, kitchen and hall. People

don’t care about these things anymore. Their priorities had changed. They mainly

consider about the location, facilities, and brand names. Hence such housing units are

dominating our cities. These buildings will provide the user predesigned space and

allows the user to modify the interior looks, such as flooring, paint etc. Today people

are more concerned to show off. They want the best selling toilet fittings, dining set,

kitchen set etc. They concentrate mainly on things more than space. Our society is

mainly influenced by brands. Especially people of kerala, they want show others what

they have. For example in our modern houses we provide modern kitchen mainly as a

show piece. Our families are used to the old kitchen. They can change the design, but

can’t change what they are used to. Hence in such houses there will be main kitchen

with all the facility where the cooking is done. This is only to show others that they

are also fitting into the society. Basically they don’t know what they want. They just

follow the trends blindly.

Modern lifestyle is mainly influenced by the technology. Especially with the internet

and social network people are spending most of their time in front of laptops and

mobile phones. This happens mainly for youth. Hence they want more privacy, asthey are living inside this social network more than in real world. Thus our new

generation is confined into their bedrooms. Very less interaction is going on between

the family members because of this. Even today’s bedrooms are perfect for such

situation. It can accommodate a lot of function. To change this situation these kinds

of designs should be changed. Rather than forcing people to stay inside their rooms,

new designs should force people to interact with each other at least inside their

homes. There comes the importance of user freedom in designs. In modern contest

the user should have freedom to modify the space according to time and situation.




Freedom of Space 17

Figure 8:Farnsworth House / Mies van der Rohe / 1945-1950

By freedom of space it’s not only the freedom to transform the space, but also the

circulation freedom, visual freedom and usage freedom. The houses we see today are

designed with specific functions. These functions will change by time and user.

Hence the design will lose its impact with time. The circulation space provided is

25% in most of the houses. It’s said that more circulation will affect the function.

Thus wastage of space will increase. These kind of standardised thoughts are the

driving force of today’s house designs.

A new house in Kerala will have a sit out from which enter into the formal living.

After that there will be a family living and dining with an open kitchen. Then there

will be a normal kitchen and work area. The bedrooms will be placed in the most

private area without any disturbance. There won’t be any connection between these

spaces. People who live inside such house won’t know who all are inside the house.

What is the use of building such houses which separates each other who lives there. A

house should be an enclosed space which brings people together. Our people also

give more importance to the security. That’s one of the reasons for the extensive useof concrete. Its durable and secure. Today people are afraid to give open courtyard in

their house, they will cover it with grill or glass for security. They don’t want

anything to be open. Its the mentality of our society.

In modern society we need to find the solution for current problems. As we are

adapting western life style we should also find architectural solutions from them. In

countries like Japan they are experimenting on open plans and temporary partitions.

Such buildings with permanent structure and temporary interior help the user to

modify the space in future. Hence we have to design for modern contest consideringthe future. At present living together is an increasing trend. Hence the designs should




Freedom of Space 18

change with change in user. For a living together couple there is no need of privacy or

huge space. A single open space will help them to get close to each other. It may

strengthen their relationship.

2.4.1 THE BOX HOUSE ON A CLIFF

Small house designs by takaharu tezuka are perfect examples for this. The box house

on a cliff is a small house with 99.46 sqm area. The house is single box structure with

movable partitions.

Figure 9 : The box house plan (courtesy: www.tezuka-arch.com)

There is one sliding wall between the bed space and living space. At night if its

closed it act as bedroom. When its open it will be one single space. There is no other

partition inside the house. This gives the user total freedom of the space. The wide

sliding glass door provides spectacular view of the mountain and lets in light. This

space can be effectively used by a newly married couple or a living together couple,

as they need no privacy between them. The building is an example for the proper use

of effective space.

Figure 10: Front view and back view (courtesy: www.tezuka-arch.com)




Freedom of Space 19

There is no wastage of space and the space can be transformed with time and user.

The building is a perfect example for flexible space. The house is totally segregated

from the surroundings. The design provides no view towards front and both sides.

Thus it has total privacy from outside. But inside it’s a single space which isconnected to the nature with the wide view. The space can be used by a single person

or a couple. But it’s not enough for a family with children. The house satisfies the

entire requirement for a user free space, such as flexibility, adaption, transformation

and interaction. Any user can modify the space at any time. But the number of user is

maximum 2 for an effective space.

Figure 11: Interior (courtesy: www.tezuka-arch.com)

2.4.2 OPEN PLAN

Figure 12: Plan libre (courtesy:www.googleimages.com)

"Le Corbusier", modern architecture, proposed his quintuple principles in the early

20th century that one of them is known as "Plan Libre". "Domino house" was

designed using this principle in 1914. The plan included flat plates (as floor and roof),

some pillar supports (to stand against level loads) and stairs to connect levels

together. No inner walls were included except for space partitioning. So inner walls

could be located wherever required that result in absolute liberalization in form and

design flexibility. According to traditional construction techniques, load-bearing

walls should determine the interior organization of the rooms on each floor. From this

point on, the use of reinforced concrete* liberated the floor plan from such




Freedom of Space 20

Figure 13: Villa savoye (courtesy: http://tanishaameen.blogspot.)

conventions: “Floors are no longer stacked on top of one another by

compartmentalization.” For this reason, the architects could arrange the interior partition as needed, that is to say in accordance with needs of function or style as

opposed to structural demands. Prompted by the devastation suffered by northern

French towns and cities following the first months of the First World War, the

original Dom-ino frame was designed by Le Corbusier as a housing prototype that if

put into production would quickly and efficiently relieve a chronic housing shortage.

Although the system itself – made up of horizontal slabs and pilotis, reducing the

building to its bare minimum – never saw production, it became an emblematic

project of twentieth-century architecture and a precursor to one of the most

widespread contemporary building systems: the concrete structural frame.

Figure 14: Domino housing




Freedom of Space 21

Le Corbusier was the most prominent architect that contributed to the Modern

movement and his Villa Savoye (1930) can be seen as an icon of this movement with

its emphasis of proportion, clear composition and aesthetic impact. The building is a

product of architect’s20 concept to offer people a better living environment, withroots in his Dom-ino structural system from 1914. Interlocking living areas of the

building were created by merging the spaces via a succession of ramps and volumes

and can be seen as essential elements of flexible space.

Figure 15:Villa savoye (courtesy:

http://tanishaameen.blogspot)




Freedom of Space 22

CHPTER 3

3.1 LITERATURE CASE STUDY

3.1.1 ROOF HOUSE – TAKAHARU TEZUKA

Principal use: Residence

Building site: Hatano-shi, Kanagawa, Japan

Site area: 298.59m2

Building area: 107.65m2

Total floor area: 96.89m2

Number of stories: 1F

Structure: Wood

Architects: Tezuka Architects - Takaharu+Yui Tezuka, Masahiro Ikeda, Daisuke

Sanada

This house boasts chairs, a table, a kitchen and a shower on its rooftop. Each family

member enjoys his own skylight, from which a ladder gives access to the roof. In roof

house daily life expands onto the roof.

Figure 16: Old house of the client (courtesy : CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities Award

Ceremony and Commemorative Speech report)

•

The family appropriated the roof of their previous house as an informal outdoorterrace, extending their living area.

• The roof deck which act as an external room is a solution for Tokyo’s lack of space.

• The notion of the roof as an external room became the starting point for the design.

• Hadano is about one hour by train from Tokyo and despite its suburban character

retains some older historic parts. The house occupies a corner plot with good views of

Mount Kobo across a valley to the south.

• The house is compactly organized, with cellular bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and

study spaces flanking the main living area.

•

Lightweight sliding partitions separate these more private areas from the main space,so that if family circumstances change, then the interior can be easily reconfigured.


http://www.archdaily.com/tag/japan/

http://www.archdaily.com/tag/wood/

http://www.tezuka-arch.com/

http://www.tezuka-arch.com/

http://www.archdaily.com/tag/wood/

http://www.archdaily.com/tag/japan/



Freedom of Space 23

• The south side is fully glazed with a narrow veranda running along its length,

overlooking a small garden.

• The main street facade is composed of austere planes of raw concrete. Interiors are

luminous and uncluttered, lined with panels of structural plywood.• A series of ladders and skylights connect the roof with the rooms below, so that each

family member has their own means of access to the deck.

Figure 17: The roof house (courtesy: www.phaidonatlas.com)

• The distinct lack of a handrail may induce palpitations in district surveyors and

anyone with young children, the family seem entirely at ease with the roof-as-room

arrangement, shinning nimbly up and down their ladders to eat, play, shower,

sunbathe, converse, contemplate the view and even practise musical instruments.

• Their former house had a smaller and steeper roof, so in this respect, the new

purpose-designed deck is a much more practical proposition.

• Despite being dependent on the agility of its occupants and the clemency of the

weather, this little house shows what can be achieved with a minimum of resources

and a slightly unconventional architectural imagination.

• The site was the very edge of the residential area. Nearby there is a mountain, and

also this area is quite spacious. so they decided that they can afford for the large roof

top, and the objective is that family can enjoy meal.




Freedom of Space 24

Figure 18: Dining area (courtesy; www.inhabitat.com)

Figure 19: The roof house (courtesy: www.pinterest.com)

• The roof tops here are slanted, so this is very important. When you go out for a date,

now think about the first stage, and if the couple is sitting side by side on the slope,that is the best way to get closer.

• Because it is slanted, it is perfect space for lying down and sitting down. This is what

used to be.

• So you know people would usually think that it is not a good manner to step outside

the windows to go somewhere, but it would be best if we put the sky light. It is very

bright with the sky light, and actually whenever he or she likes, just can go up to the

roof through the sky light.

• But on the roof top, they designed a small wall to get privacy from the neighbouring

buildings.




Freedom of Space 25

• A lot of people think about always being in control of their environment or controlled

by the environment nature, but actually you just have to switch our thinking and we

have to find out what is the most pleasant way to live with the nature, It is not

practical, but the client said in summer, it is hot, therefore early in the morning indawn or in late in evening we go out, and in winter, during the daytime, with the lot

of sunlight we step out, it is so stupid and ridiculous people do not appreciate it.

Figure 20: Roof house plan (courtesy: www.tezuka-arch.com)




Freedom of Space 26

INFERENCE

The design of the house is such that it opens into the infinity through the roof. The

roof is accessible from every room. Each room has a skylight which opens into the

roof with a ladder. Glass partitions are used for interior and exterior walls; hence the

interior feels so spacious. The total area of the house is 100sq m. Even it’s a small

house we won’t feel congested because of the open spaces and glass partitions. As

each room has a skylight, the space opens horizontally and vertically into the

surroundings. It provides more openness to the building.

Figure 21:Roof house interior (courtesy:news.domain.com.au)

The family uses the rooftop for cooking and dining every day. The roof top also acts

as an interactive space for the family. It connects each room in the house and also the

people. Thus it increases interaction between the family members. There is only a

partition wall on the roof which gives the family privacy from the neighbouring

houses. The roof is not steep hence it’s safe to be around. Therefore there is no

handrail. Not only on the roof, but also inside the house the space is visually open.

Hence it will connect each user in the house and the user can see every activityhappening inside the house. As a family the parents and the children will be much

closer in this house, as there is less partitions to separate them.




Freedom of Space 27

Figure 22: Plan showing flexible space

Figure 23: Section (courtesy:news.domain.com.au)




Freedom of Space 28

Figure 24: Ladder to the roof top(courtesy :

CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities Award


Figure 25: Skylight and kitchen at roof top(courtesy : CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities

Award Ceremony and Commemorative Speech report)

Figure 26: Roof top shower and skylight(courtesy :

CELE 4th Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities Award





Freedom of Space 29

3.1.2 SCHRODER HOUSE - GERRIT RIETVELD

Principal use – Residence

Building site –yy Utrecht, Netherland

No of stories – 2

Project year – 1925

Architect – Gerrit Rietveld

Figure 27:Gerrit Rietveld: Schroder House (courtesy: openbuildings.com)

• The house was built for Mrs. Truus and her three children by Gerrit Rietveld.

• The Schroder House is an iconic building, associated to the De Stijl movement of

which Rietveld was part. It is arguably one of the only true pieces of De Stijl

architecture.




Freedom of Space 30

• Gerrit Rietveld had close relationship with Truus Schroder; he lived in the house until

her death in April 1985.

•

The house was restored in 1974 and is now a Museum of Rietveld’s works.

•

The house was designed after the death o Mrs. Schroder’s husband.

•

Her desire for a new way of living bought the first contact between her and Rietveld.

•

In 1923 when her husband died she wanted a new house which suits her new situation

as a young widow.

• Mrs. Schroder wanted the house to bring her closer to her children, both emotionally

and physically.

• Hence it was designed to increase the interaction between the occupants.

• The house was completed in 1924.

• The chosen site is at the end of prins hendriklaan, Utrecht, the Netherland.

• The house is located at the end of a heavy block of terraced houses.

Figure 28: Prins hendriklaan (courtesy: www.maps.live.com)

• At the time of construction these were recently built conventional style homes in a

middle class area. Located on the outskirts of the city it looked out across open fields

and trees




Freedom of Space 31

• Mrs Schroder was keen for the house to make the most out of these beautiful

surroundings, as can be clearly seen when looking at the plans.

•

In the 1960s a large motorway was built to the east, removing the focal point of the

building design. The building was orientated towards this beautiful countryside,

unlike existing terraces which faced in towards the central road, so this change affects

the whole feel of the building externally and internally. As seen Rietveld has made no

attempt to make it fit in with the surrounding buildings.

Figure 29: Side elevation (courtesy: https://reader009.{domain}/reader009/html5/0317/5aad2ed266361/5aad2eeb02662.jp

•

This makes it a bold design statement and a focal point for that street.

• “No one had ever looked at this little lane before this house was built here. There was

a dirty crumbling wall with weeds growing in front of it was a real piece of no-

man’sland B And we took this plot of ground and made it into a place with a reality ofits own. It didn’t matter what it was, so long as something was there.” These words of




Freedom of Space 32

Rietveld’s clearly show how he felt the existing architecture had no significant

features that he must conform to.

Figure 30:Ground floor plan

• The house has two levels, the ground floor consists of a hall, reading room, studio,

kitchen-dining-living room, bedroom and working area and the first floor where

dynamic spaces are used and created by the occupier.

•

The ground floor plan was standardised to comply with building regulations, intraditional order.

• The layout of the ground floor has been effectively designed. The path leads you to

the front door, where you enter into a hallway. This is a good design consideration as

it provides an enclosed space to prevent cold air circulating the whole ground floor

area. There is also built-in storage/furniture in this space to make it very functional.

• The hallway acts as the heart of the building and provides access to the main rooms.

• The reading room is designed as a private space with few windows and segregated

from rest of the house.




Freedom of Space 33

• The rest of the ground floor is connected through a circular flowing plan. With direct

access from outside and the hallway, the studio space has been effectively positioned.

Figure 31:Upper floor interior view with partitions partially closed (courtesy: Rietveld Schroder House,” MIT Press,

Cambridge, 1988, p. 10-11.)

Figure 32;Upper floor interior view with partitions open (courtesy: Rietveld Schroder House,” MIT Press, Cambridge,

1988, p. 10-11.)




Freedom of Space 34

• There is a small sleeping and multifunctional space for when guests are invited, as the

main sleeping and living area is upstairs to make the most out of the surrounding

views. This gives a separate area so that the owners can keep their own private space.

This is particularly important as Mrs Schroder entertained many artists andintellectuals.

•

The main downstairs space is the open plan kitchen area that serves this purpose. It

has one large window on the southeast elevation to give sufficient natural lighting for

cooking tasks. The other walls provide space for kitchen cupboards and work

surfaces.

• Separate from the upstairs living space it may seem less sociable, but in fact its

positioning fits the needs of the client as she didn’t want her guests having to come up

through her personal space and it excludes odours from the rest of the house.

•

The tight winding staircase which acts as the core of the building invites you up into

the main living space of the house.

• The large box skylight provides enough light to the staircase, which is the centre of

the house.

Figure 33:First floor plan with partitions closed




Freedom of Space 35

Figure 34:First floor plan with partitions open

• Next to the stairs runs the chimney, which cuts straight up the building and out the

roof. Positioned just off centre it follows the rule of thirds to give a comfortable and

attractive aesthetic form.

• The first floor living space is the main focus of the house.

•

It is a large open plan space that allows the most function and efficient use of space. It

has the ability to adapt to specific requirements of the time, event and atmosphere.

This has been done through the use of sliding and rotating partition walls, giving a

dynamic space and making it a machine for living in.

• By positioning the bathroom between the two main bedrooms it creates a sense of

community, joining the family together. Mrs Schroder wanted a home based around

family values and Rietveld has achieved this through his planning of the upstairs free

plan open space.

• Upstairs each room has its own balcony space, linking the inside without; meeting

another requirement in Mrs Schroder’s brief.




Freedom of Space 36

Figure 35:First floor with partitions open

• The Rietveld Schroder house still seems modern today. There are many elements of

its design that have been absorbed into contemporary housing and lifestyles. Most

significantly is the flexible open planning of the first floor.

• Today most open plan living is located on the ground floor, containing the kitchen,

dining room and lounge. The Schroder House uses the open plan space for the lounge

and bedrooms, with a dynamic plan rarely seen in today’s homes.

•

The public prefer to have defined spaces. Moving walls may seem practical, but can

be difficult when rooms are filled with furniture and in use. Rietveld believed that his

experiments into space-saving built in furniture and flexible living areas would be

incorporated into designs of working class homes.

• The extent of this has been limited. Few mass produced homes contain these features,

with users opting more for space efficient, multifunctional furniture inhabiting the

space, rather than being part of the building. This is because it gives more choice and

ability to change.

• Today’s home clearly shows how modern women are independent, a keen feature that

Mrs Schroder wanted to show in her home.




Freedom of Space 37

Figure 36:First floor with partitions open(courtesy: telegraph.co.uk)

INFERENCE

The house is one of the first examples for flexible living space. It was built in 1924.At that time most of the buildings were following traditional building elements and

spaces. Apart from that architect Gerrit Rielveld experimented such a flexible design.

The client’s requirement was to bring her family together. After the death of her

husband she wanted to build a strong relationship with her children. For that the house

should connect people with more interaction spaces and connection with each space in

it. Architect Gerrit Reitveld solved it perfectly.

Figure 37: First floor(courtesy:

Rietveld Furniture and the Schroder House, The South Bank Centre)




Freedom of Space 38

Figure 38:Ground floor plan showing circulation path

The ground floor of the house occupies spaces for sleeping, reading, working and

kitchen. The hall act as the core space of the ground floor which connects all the

rooms. Most of the rooms can be accessed from outside also. Ground floor is a well

designed space with proper connections. Only the reading room feels separated from

other spaces, for privacy. The circulation of the ground floor is such that it connectsall the spaces inside. It’s also connected from outside also. This allows the user to

move freely through the spaces. It increases the interaction between the users as they

are all connected.




Freedom of Space 39

Figure 39:First floor plan showing flexible spaces

First floor is mainly used for working, sleeping, living and dining. But the functions

can be changed, as the space is flexible. The partitions provided in first floor are

temporary. With the help of movable partitions the space can be transformed

according to its use. When the partitions are opened first floor act as a large single

space. Hence the user has the freedom to modify the space with time and use. Even in

case if another user occupies the building, the new user can transform it according to

his use. It was a revolutionary design which influenced the modern housing.

First floor satisfies the client’s requirement, as it does not segregate the spaces it will

increase the user interaction. It helps to bring the family closer.




Freedom of Space 40

3.2 LIVE CASE STUDY

3.2.1 SREEPADHAM PALACE – TRIVANDRUM

Figure 40:Sreepadham palace front view (courtesy: on site)

The fort and Palaces of Thiruvananthapuram where the Royal family stayed and ruled

over, demonstrate the vitality and strength of the ancient tradition of Kerala

Architecture. The history of this land is in many ways reflected and entwined with the

history of these eye-catching edifices. Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple, the fort

encompassing the temple, the Palaces, heritage buildings and ponds are now part of

National Heritage. Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple, the shrine consecrated to Sri

Padmanabha, the chief deity of the Royal family is almost in the middle of the fort.

There are abundant of palaces surrounding the temple, which were constructed in a

span of about 800 years. Very old buildings were obliterated and new-one were built

in place. Almost all structures are fine examples of traditional domestic architecture

except a few constructed by European Engineers. Sreepadam Palace is a cluster of

residential structures built in different periods of time. The earliest one in the palacecomplex is a nalukettu which is mentioned as Sreepada Thirthakkara

Kandukondedathu Koyikkal in the Mathilakom Records (Sri Padmanabhaswamy

temple records). Lord Sri Padmanabha is being worshipped as reclining Vishnu

(Vishnu Anantasayin) with head directing towards the South. It is believed that the

lustral water (thirtham) washing the legs of Sri Padmanabha had been drained to the

tank in the Sreepadam Palace complex. Hence it is known as Sreepada thirtham. Sri

Vira Ravi Varma who ruled Travancore between 1484 and 1503 stayed in this Palace

for many years.




Freedom of Space 41

Figure 41:Sreepadham palace exterior view (courtesy : on site)

The nalukettu, is with 2 open halls on east and south of central courtyard, bed rooms

are at west and a small kitchen on the north eastern side with a well connected to it

(on the east). The building is believed to be used as a resting place for attingal queens

at the time of their temple visits. Hence it is segregated from eastern side with a wall

running through east. There is a room at southern side of the building which is

detached from the main structure. And a veranda is running all around the house. The

bedrooms are so small and dark so that it can only be used for sleeping. The kitchen

has 3 openings one at east from the well, one to south and another to north. 2 rooms

in the building are segregated using wood which is seen through. Other traditional

style buildings built during the time of Marthanda Varma (1729-1758) are also there.

Figure 42:wooden partition in sreepadham palace (courtesy : on site)




Freedom of Space 42

Figure 43:View of the sreepadham pond with sreepadham palace (courtesy :www.old.kerala.gov.in)

INFERENCE

The house is small compared to other nalukettu houses in kerala. But the open spaces

inside the building give the user circulation and visual freedom. There are four entries

into the building 3 from east and one from north. Two entries are to kitchen, one tomain hall and one to side corridor. When we enter into the building through the

kitchen it will direct us to the courtyard and main kitchen. It’s one of the speciality of

the building the user have more circulation options. We are not directed through a

specific path inside the building. The courtyard itself provides free circulation. The

only private spaces in the building are the four small rooms at western side of the

building which is supposed to be bedrooms. All the other rooms have 2 or more

openings which allow more circulation. There is a stretched veranda throughout the

exterior wall.

Figure 44:Sreepadham palace inner courtyard (courtesy : on site)


http://www.old.kerala.gov.in/




Freedom of Space 43

Figure 45:Sreepadham palace interior (courtesy : on site)

About 70% of the building is open space. Rest 30% is enclosed with walls. Henceeven the building is small it doesn’t feel congested inside. Almost all the activities

happening in the building can be seen from the courtyard. Hence it acts as the core of

the building. The only private space in the building is the bedroom space. Hence it

provide enough privacy and increases interaction between the users. The building

stands on a framed structure. The building has load bearing stone pillars were load

from huge wooden beams are transferred. The load from roof is transferred to the

pillars through these wooden beams. Thus the structure has no major problems. The

use of columns and wooden beams helps to decrease the use of load bearing walls.

This provides more open spaces. The use of wooden partitions gives visualtransparency. The structure is segregated from the exterior without giving any

windows on eastern side, but less segregated inside to give maximum openness, to

make it more spacious.

Figure 46:Plan showing open and closed space in serrpadham palace




Freedom of Space 44

Figure 47:Circulation plan of Sreepadham Palace

The maximum number of openings in the building increases the circulation inside.

We can move freely through the space, there is no specific path to any room. We can

see this in the diagram above. Only the bedrooms and the room at south have dead

ends in circulation (only one door). All the other rooms have more than 2 doors

which allow more circulation.

The house also has an attic space which can be accessed from the main hall andkitchen. The building has fewer openings to outside and is open at inside. This helps

to provide more privacy from outside. The function of the house is also believed to

accommodate ladies during their time of pregnancy. Hence privacy is essential as

they are not allowed to touch their husbands during that time. The design satisfies this

requirement without compromising the air circulation and openness. Open spaces

helps proper air circulation inside. This reduces the temperature inside the building

and keeps it cool.




Freedom of Space 45

CHAPRER 4

4.1 GUDELINES

By analysing the three case studies I found some factors which will help to increase

the user freedom in designed spaces. My suggestions for freedom space are follows.

• Flexible spaces will help the user to modify the space according to time and use.

• Temporary partitions such as movable/folding walls will help the user to expand

the room into a single space.

• Temporary partitions will also help to transform the space in future.

•

Open plans helps to increase the connection between spaces.

• Open plans also provide more circulation and visual freedom to the user.

• Open plans will increase the interaction between the users.

• By providing central courtyard or a hall space which connects all the rooms in a

house will be helpful to connect the spaces and thus the people.

• An open central courtyard which opens into sky will provide more light and

ventilation inside the building; hence it will help to increase the activities in the

living space as it feels so lively.

• Skylights can be used to connect the rooms to the roof, thus the roof can be used as

an external living space which connects all the rooms.

• The use of glass partitions will help to give visual transparency were people can see

each other.

•

Roof can be used as an external living space.

• By increasing the connection between rooms with doors will help the user to

circulate freely in the space; it will help to increase the interaction.

• Multi functional spaces can be provided by using movable partitions.

Such factors will help to increase the user freedom in designed space. The user will

have an option to modify or to use the space accordingly. By applying such factors

in build and sell houses will help different users to use the space according to their

functions.




Freedom of Space 46

4.2 CONCLUSIONS

The focus of this dissertation has been on some of the architectural and social issues

of the modern society. By studying some buildings, the aim was to answer the

question of how to provide user freedom in a designed space. In order to achieve the

goal I analysed three buildings, the roof house, Schroder house and sreepadham

palace, investigating their different approaches in user freedom.

The first two buildings were in foreign contest and sreepadam palace is the study of

how our traditional spaces provide user freedom. The main problem we face today is

that the buildings cant adapt change with time.

• The roof house is designed by Ar Takaharu Tezuka. The design satisfies all the

requirements of the client. And gives the option to transform the space in future, by

giving movable partitions. The building connects the people horizontally and

vertically through glass partitions and skylight. All the rooms have connection to the

roof. The roof is the main interactive space of the building.

• Schroder house is designed by Ar Gerrit Rietveld. The important features of this

house are connectivity of changing space functions and ability of separating and

rejoining of volumes by using movable partitions. The basic requirements of thehouseholds as much as privacy needed can be obtained by the ability of conversion.

The main living area has open plan and free structural system that gives ability of

space changing.

• Sreepadham palace was build during 15th century. The purpose of the building was to

accommodate royal ladies. Hence the building provides enough privacy from outside.

And inside the space is open. The spaces are freely connected which gives more

circulation freedom. The seen through wooden partitions provide openness. The

building has no flexible technology, but still it provides the user freedom of motion

and openness. By using open corridors, courtyard and seen through partitions. The

open space increases interaction. The house is still relevant in modern society. A

modern family can easily fit into the house.

By analysing the three buildings i came to a conclusion that flexible spaces will give

the user total freedom. Not only flexible spaces open plans also give the user a certain

amount of freedom, such as circulation and visual freedom. Such spaces will increase

the interaction between people and are effective all the time.




Freedom of Space 47

CHAPTER 5

5.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES:

• EVALUATING FLEXIBILITY NOTIONS IN MASS HOUSING OF NORTH

CYPRUS THROUGH LEARNING FROM HER RURAL VERNACULAR

ARCHITECTURE, THESIS BY GOLSHID GILANI

• FLEXIBLE ARCHITECTURE FOR THE DYNAMIC SOCIETIES, THESIS BY

LARISSA ACHARYA

• FLEXIBILITY CONCEPT IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR

DOMESTIC TRANSFORMATION BY SIDDHARTH INANI AND ASHOK

KUMAR

•

FLEXIBLE SPACES IN ARCHITECTUR BY AGHIL EMAMGHOLI

WEBSITES:

• www.wikipidea.com

• www.archdaily.com

• www.old.kerala.gov.in

•

ftp://pc30.architettura.unirc.it

http://www.wikipidea.com/


http://www.archdaily.com/




ftp://pc30.architettura.unirc.it/






Freedom of space

Documents

Transcript of Freedom of space