Designing with an intention for a space to be used in multiple ways has always seemed daunting to me. However, discussing the strategies of designing architecture as a spatial frame has given me a new way to think about designing for a rotating group of users and programs. Jean Nouvel’s Neumausus Housing in Nimes and Anne Lacaton and Jean-Luc Vassal’s Latapie House reminded me of the open floor layouts of modern architecture. Specifically, I thought of Mies Van der Rohe’s Crown Hall on the campus of IIT. Does the selection of materials and programs of the space dictate the user base? In other words, how can an open floor plan (architecture as a frame) be used in an upper-brow way versus its use in lower-middle class housing?
I think that scale of an open space also has a lot to do with the user base of a building. For example, an upper-brow home would have vast rooms with ceilings that would require a professional to change the lightbulbs, versus in a middle-class home open space speaks more to sight lines between rooms for conversation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that open plans can be daunting, because you're often forced to use furniture as a way to dictate spaces instead of being comfortable with complete openness. However, furniture can be "designed" simultaneously with architecture while being vague enough to be used for multiple programs. This is a challenge we will always deal with as designers, finding that balance between open, "non-programmed" space and specifically designed spaces.
ReplyDeleteI think that the somewhat recent popularization of sustainability and LEED related practices will propel "open floor plans" into wider usage and acceptance in larger scale uses. The idea that multiple activities can take place under the same roof during different times of the day is a far more sustainable practice than building two separate spaces, and I believe this argument will be used more and more to justify open spaces as time progresses.
ReplyDelete