PROXEMETRICdesign by Megan Dougherty

design

Megan Dougherty NewSchool of Architecture & Design, 2015

design

A Thesis presented to the Faculty of NewSchool of Architecture & Design in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Architecture. By Megan Dougherty San Diego, 2015

PROXEMETRICdesign a design tool for creating culturally sensitive residential spaces By Megan Dougherty NewSchool of Architecture & Design Prof. Kurt C. Hunker Director of Graduate Programs Chair, Graduate Department of Architecture The Problem Globalization has led to internationalized architecture. Buildings and spaces are increasingly homogenized while cultural values are found to not be converging. Anthropological and psychological studies find that space preference differs per culture and adequate space allocation is essential for psychological well-being. This study aims to develop a design tool to remedy this trend of homogenization, by focusing on cultural space preference, to create physically, socially, and psychologically comfortable spaces for the culture of occupancy. The Method

The Results When comparing the results of case studies in Japan and Southern California, clear sensory transmission differences are observed. Japanese and American survey responses support differing preferences for public and private spaces, activity systems, and sensory interactions. The results of analysis align with previous studies on the topic of cultural difference and space planning. Modification of interior and exterior elements of the Southern California home successfully develops sensory characteristics in line with Japanese preference findings, showing the viability of this tool to create spaces reflective of cultural preferences.

ABSTRACT

design

A Thesis presented to the Faculty of NewSchool of Architecture & Design in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Architecture. By Megan Dougherty San Diego, 2015

PROXEMETRICdesign By Megan Dougherty NewSchool of Architecture & Design

Vuslat Demircay, PhD. Thesis Advisor

Eve Edelstein, M.Arch, PhD. (Neuroscience), EDAC, Assoc. AIA, F-AAA Faculty Advisor

Leigh Ann Pfeiffer, LEED AP, Assoc. AIA Faculty Advisor

SIGNATURES

Kurt C. Hunker, Director of Graduate Programs Chair, Graduate Department of Architecture

A special thank you to my family and friends who are the best support system I could ask for. Mom, Dad, Gray, and Martha, thank you for being my sounding board, for leading by example, and for inspiring me to push myself outside my comfort zone. Thank you for encouraging me and believing in me. No matter the number of late night phone calls and stressed out conversations, you showed nothing but love and support. I could not have done this without you!

DEDICATION + ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my instructor, Dr. Vuslat Demircay, for guiding me through this process and serving as a mentor over this past year. Thank you for encouraging my exploration and assisting me in my growth as a researcher and designer. Your advice and support have proved invaluable to my educational experience. My committee members, Dr. Eve Edelstein and Leigh Ann Pfeiffer, deserve my sincerest thanks for their time and expertise. Thank you for all of your valuable feedback and support, and for volunteering your time to my effort. Thank you to Kaz Kishimoto for assistance in gathering research and for giving his time for an interview. Thank you to Grace Lee and Krista Lee West for providing case study information. Thank you to the San Diego Japanese Business Association for allowing me the opportunity to attend one of their meetings and for assisting me in gathering survey data.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH STUDIES

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN PROCESS

149

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

169

REFERENCES

173

LIST OF FIGURES

177

APPENDIX A: SURVEY

183

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW WITH KAZ KISHIMOTO

219

APPENDIX C: PRESENTATION BOARDS + PHOTOS

225

APPENDIX D: MODEL PHOTOS

235

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE CHALLENGE 1.2 BACKGROUND - HISTORICAL AND CURRENT CONTEXT 1.3 THESIS STATEMENT 1.4 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.2 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

A.1 RESPONSES

C.1 FALL 2014 PROGRESS REVIEW 1 C.2 FALL 2014 PROGRESS REVIEW 2 C.3 FALL 2014 FINAL REVIEW C.4 WINTER 2015 MIDTERM REVIEW C.5 WINTER 2015 FINAL REVIEW C.6 SPRING 2015 MIDTERM REVIEW C.7 SPRING 2015 FINAL REVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 SURVEY 3.2 CASE STUDIES 3.3 SYNTHESIS 3.4 SITE RESEARCH 3.5 SITE SELECTION

CHAPTER 1

introduction

CHAPTER 1

We live in a world of starchitects (star architects), a world in which fame and fortune are attractive while function and psychological well-being are sometimes neglected. It is commonplace to see buildings designed by architects who share no cultural relationship to the place in which they are hired to design, but they accept the commission to “diversify” their portfolio. Globalization has created a world where cross-cultural exchanges are inevitable, increasing the importance of developing a unique design approach to recognize the diverse needs of cultures. Previous studies prove that adequate spaces are essential to human health and that spatial preferences change based on culture. To bring these theories into the architectural designs of today is to create a better world for current and future generations. 1.1 Statement of the Challenge

Globalization has brought our world together through technology, communication, and economics. Internationally, we watch the same movies and television shows, read the same books, and participate in the same social media sites. This may lead to the assumption that values are also shared, but “data from the World Values Survey demonstrate that mass values have not been converging” (World Values Survey Association, 2014). Cultural values seem to be evolving independently in parallel with the values of other cultures. “Moreover, while economically advanced societies have been changing rather rapidly, countries that remained economically stagnant showed little value change” (World Values Survey Association, 2014). Domestic cultural groups maintain their own value systems. “Superficially, these groups may all look alike and sound somewhat alike, but beneath the surface are manifold unstated, unformulated differences in their structuring of time, space, materials, and relationships” (Hall, 1969, p. x). Between 2010 and 2050, the international immigrant population in the United States is expected to grow by one million people annually (United Nations, 2013). Immigration is creating more diversity and culturally distinct neighborhoods in the United States, bringing a necessity for cultural understanding in design not only internationally, but also domestically. With the United States economy still struggling, many American designers are looking to economies abroad for work, facilitated by our increasingly global economy. “The top 20 firms in the 2012 Almanac of Architecture and Design - who are all headquartered in the United States - reported that nearly $1.6 billion of revenue came from work outside U.S. borders. That equals about 30 percent of their total revenue worldwide” (Wignall, 2012). An increase in international work, and the cultural diversity of clientele, presents architects with the challenge of designing for cultural values they may not, and cannot, fully understand. It is essential that a design methodology focusing on cultural space preference is developed to provide a tool for successful international, and culturally minded domestic, design as a platform for future urban intervention. “Informal spatial patterns have distinct bounds, and such deep, if unvoiced, significance that they form an essential part of the culture. To misunderstand

INTRODUCTION

the significance may invite disaster” (Hall, 1969, p. 112). Spatial needs are an innate biological requirement for both physical and psychological health. “Space is one of the basic, underlying organization systems for all living things” (Hall, 1969, p. xii). If we ignore this biological need by assuming that cultures have homogenized due to globalization, we run the risk of subjecting occupants to unhealthy environments, inviting psychological and physical illness. The modern concept of globalization can be broken down into six eras. The first era began in 1850 and ended in 1914. At this time, the international economy was controlled by Great Britain. Economic globalization was tied to technological innovations in transportation such as the steamship and the Suez and Panama canals. “Such economic connections promoted cultural ones as well. Thus, early signs of globalization in cultural exchanges were evident” (Zeiler, 2002).

1.2 Background - Historical and Current Context

The second era of globalization took place from 1914 to 1939. The end of World War I brought an era of increased technology, bringing the world closer together, but also farther apart as “the world divided along ideological fissures” during the Cold War (Zeiler, 2002). This is the era in which student study abroad programs gain international significance as the importance of understanding a global context became apparent. Global air transport, radio, and cinema rapidly spread as “people around the world listened and watched the new media” (Zeiler, 2002). The third era of globalization occurred during World War II, 1940-1950. This era defined “America as an economic and military superpower” allowing for the development of “endless frontiers for scientific discovery, and speed[ing] the globalization process” (Zeiler, 2002). This third era of globalization marked the start of the United States government marketing the “American dream” internationally. The fourth era of globalization took place from 1951 to 1972 and is marked by a sharp increase in immigration to the United States, mostly of war refugees from Europe. “Technical developments in aviation, transportation, and communications brought cost reductions and improved service” to the general public, while “improvements in air transport made it possible for business to source suppliers and serve markets globally” (Zeiler, 2002). Political and economic decentralization mark the fifth era of globalization. “Technological transformations allowed American and other multinational firms to escape national regulations, and also helped free ordinary people from the boundaries of the nation-state” (Zeiler, 2002). The sixth era of globalization began in 1990 with the hope “that globalization had the potential to harmonize behavior, customs, and politics and usher in prosperity, development, and democracy” (Zeiler, 2002).

CHAPTER 1

fig. 1.1 Hallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s four personal space distances: (from left to right) intimate distance, personal distance, social distance, public distance Source: by author

Architectural homogeneity spread, and became more prevalent, with each era of globalization, as can be seen through international movements such as Modernism and the International Style of architecture. Le Corbusier stated that â&#x20AC;&#x153;a house is a machine for living in.â&#x20AC;? This statement is true, but different occupants require different machines. As spatial planning began to disregard cultural individuality, scholars began studying the effects of these shifts to understand their effect on occupants. Anthropologist Edward T. Hall, in his 1969 book The Hidden Dimension, breaks human space requirements into four boundaries (fig 1.1) based on his concept of proxemics; intimate distance, personal distance, social distance, and public distance, defined by the intimacy of interactions, based on acceptance of sense stimulations, in each zone. The exact distances that create these boundaries vary from culture to culture, but the premise that four zones exist is a cross-cultural phenomenon. The five senses Hall cites as most influencing personal space distances are kinesthesia, thermal receptors, olfaction, vision, and oral/aural. Kinesthesia involves the response to touch, thermal reception is the response to body heat through conduction (contact) or radiation, olfaction refers to the strength of scent, vision focuses on whether vision is clear or distorted and the amount of detail visible, and oral/aural refers to any noises heard including voice volume. The combinations of these five senses stimulated in various patterns determine personal space distances (Hall, 1969). The intimate distance is reserved for two parties who are aware that physical contact will happen. This space is for close friends and lovers. Personal Distance is reserved for two people who know one another, but may not have an intimate enough relationship to share the intimate distance. Social distance is incorporated in business and social gatherings where two people may not know each other well. This distance is used when quick disengagement from the interaction may be necessary. Public distance is the most impersonal and formal of the distances. It is reserved for strangers and allows for easy defense in a threatening situation. At the public distance, acknowledgment of the other person is not necessary. Understanding the differences in these spheres between cultures provides insight into what constitutes psychologically and physically comfortable space for interaction.

INTRODUCTION

“Man’s sense of space is a synthesis of many sensory inputs: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and thermal. Not only does each of these constitute a complex system...but each is molded and patterned by culture. Hence, there is no alternative to accepting the fact that people reared in different cultures live in different sensory worlds” (Hall, 1969, p. 181). Cultural identification shapes our proxemic distances. If these proxemic distances are translated into architectural space preferences then we, as designers, can understand cultural spatial perceptions and preferences to design physically and psychologically comfortable spaces for urban life.

1.3 Thesis Statement

A triangular, anthropological, research approach is utilized to investigate spatial needs (fig 1.2), with domestic architecture serving as the case study typology due to the personal nature of the organization of a home. Scholarly writings, survey questionnaires, and case study analyses are brought together to develop a comprehensive research study.

1.4 Method of Investigation

To develop a successful methodology of design, as a building block for future study, one culture is investigated through both typological case studies and personal survey responses investigating cultural norms and preferences for privacy, function, and layout in accordance with the sense stimulation cited by Hall to influence proxemics distances (discussed further in Chapter 2). The culture of study is Japanese, including people who identify culturally as both Japanese and Japanese American. Japanese culture was chosen for three distinct reasons. First, Japan is a unique case in today’s globalized society with 98% of the population of Japan being ethnically Japanese (Aliasis, 2013), creating a higher probability of shared culture and shared values. Second, traditional Japanese architecture includes a defined materials palette, color scheme, and space use pattern. Third, modern Japanese homes are designed to last only 20-30 years, which “has resulted in a continual renewal of the urban setting and consequently a rapid implementation of new architectural ideas” (Nuijsink, 2012. P. 24). This constant rebuilding of Japanese homes has ensured that architecture is continuously updated with progressing cultural values. Scholarly Writings

OUTCOME

Survey Questionnaire

Case Studies

fig. 1.2 Triangular Approach to Research Source: by author

CHAPTER 1

Urban residential is the focus of case studies. A person’s home “provide[s] a refuge where the individual can ‘let his hair down’ and be himself ” (Hall, 1969, p. 104). Home is a place where a person feels most comfortable and a place where relaxation can occur. Spatial organization in a home is mostly decided upon by occupants, giving us a view of spatial preference versus looking at spaces imposed on us by others such as a workplace or public establishment. The restrictions placed on urban development create a necessity for space maximization and efficiency due to the small nature of urban residential spaces. Less available space brings layers of spatial importance into a more immediate view. Urban residential, from post-World War II to current design trends, is analyzed to see what, if any, patterns emerge relating to spatial planning, layout, and usage. World War II marks a defined start of western lifestyle influence abroad, beginning a change in daily living preferences, and therefore a change is spatial requests. After the war, changes continued. “During the past 30 years, the world has witnessed profound changes in political, economic and social spheres and increasingly rapid technological advances” (World Values Survey Association, 2014). All case study selections are post World War II urban residential, with half of the case studies constructed within these last 30 years defined by rapid change. Online survey questions, developed and distributed to members of the culture of focus, investigate current spatial preferences and support hypotheses created through case studies. Participants include respondents identifying culturally as Japanese, Japanese American, and American, with Japanese and Japanese American participant results used in conjunction with Japanese case studies and American participant results used for comparison purposes. After the development of this methodology, an interview supports the success of the initial findings and assists in a residential modification project based on research outcomes. Case studies, and survey and interview results, are analyzed with the intent of creating a culturally sensitive spatial framework methodology that can be applied to the design of various building typologies and urban spaces both domestically and internationally. The main goal of the study is to develop an architectural and anthropological method for cultural understanding in spatial needs and preferences for the purpose of designing psychologically comfortable urban residential spaces, with the understanding that these needs and preferences may vary per culture. Many factors influence space preference. This study investigates the cultural factor of our spatial preferences, more specifically sense stimulation. Hall identifies sense stimulation as the largest determiner of proxemic distances. This study translates these sense relationships into proxemetric relationships (fig 1.3). Adjacencies of people in proxemic distances impact interaction in those spaces just as the adjacencies of architectural spaces impact interactions between occupants in those spaces. As cities become denser, and living units become smaller, the idea of spatial understanding is increasingly important to ensure that space is designed responsibly to guarantee that a smaller living space does not equate to a lesser 18

INTRODUCTION

Sense Stimulation

Culture

Sense Stimulation

fig. 1.3 Scope of Study Source: by author

Culture

Proxemics

Space Preference

living space. The methodology developed in this study is tested through the remodel of an urban Southern California residence to understand how a space originally designed for an American occupant may be adapted to become a culturally sensitive space for a different cultural inhabitant. Three Southern California homes are analyzed in the same method utilized for analysis of the Japanese case studies to narrow the selection of three homes down to one home which most synthesizes the sensory aspects of all three Southern California homes. The selected home is modified to test how layouts and adjacencies can be manipulated to direct sensory interaction. Structural and non-structural elements will be modified to transform the home into a space in line with the sensory findings in Japanese homes. The final design focuses on spatial planning in relation to research findings, while exploring other important aspects of traditional Japanese architecture such as material use.

CHAPTER 2

research studies

CHAPTER 2

Psychologists and anthropologists stress the importance of sufficient space for psychological well-being. Many books and articles have been written, and studies and experiments conducted, to show the importance of the design of the spaces in which we live. The following chapter discusses selections of these studies and writings and their importance in relation to the development of proxemetrics. In 1969, anthropologist Edward T. Hall defined four distinct human spatial boundaries; intimate, personal, social, and public. According to Hall, the distances that determine the size of these spaces differs by culture (Hall, 1969). Boundaries are defined by the level of intimacy of the activities culturally accepted within those distances (fig 2.1). Anthropological papers brought together by Susan Kent in 1993 bring this theory into the development of domestic architecture and begin to explore how domestic spaces are used and divided across cultures (Kent, 1993). The name of this study, Proxemetric Design, is derived from Edward T. Hall’s theory of proxemics. Hall coined the term proxemics to define and describe “the interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture” (Hall, 1969, p. 1). Space is experienced differently by different individuals. This experience “is [in part] molded by culture, those deep, common, unstated experiences which members of a given culture share, which they communicate without knowing, and which form the backdrop against which all other events are judged” (Hall, 1969, p. x). Just as language informs our speech patterns and verbal communication from birth, cultural identity informs our perception of the world and space. Much of this is influenced by sense stimulation in cultural traditions and practices.

fig 2.1 Senses which determine proxemic distances. Source: Author

Many variables contribute to a person’s cultural identity. By filtering these variables into architectural terms, decisions, and preferences, a translation of Hall’s theory of proxemics into a design methodology can take place (fig 2.2). Individual and shared experiences, location of origin, daily rituals, family

Intimate Distance

Personal Distance

Social Distance

Public Distance

Kinesthesia

-Probable

-Possible

-Impossible

Thermal Receptors

-Body Heat -Breath

-None

Olfaction

-Breath -Body Odor -Perfume

-Body Odor

-None

Vision

-Distortion (Large) -Face Fills Visual Field -Enlarged Facial Details -Cross-Eyed Sensation

-Slight Distortion (Large) -Shoulders in Visual Field -Facial Details

-No Distortion -Whole Body in Visual Field -No Facial Details

-Distortion - Small -Other People Seen -No Facial Details

Aural

-Whisper

-Soft Voice

-Normal Voice

-Loud Voice

RESEARCH STUDIES

dynamics, demographics, and values, among others, all play important roles in shaping the way we look at the world and the space around us, in turn informing our cultural identity. When translated into spatial preferences we study materiality to understand transparencies for space use and requirements for local climates, space use and activity systems to understand rituals and family dynamics, the assignment of spaces as public or private based on previous experiences and other variables, all contributing to the acceptance of sense stimulations, with an outcome of proxemetric design. For the purposes of this study, design principles are developed for a cultural group to encompass a broad range of preferences, with the acknowledgement that these preferences can be further specified based on individual experience. fig 2.2 Variables contributing to cultural identity with spatial outcomes. Source: Author

Individual Experiences Rituals Shared Experiences Family System Location Demographics Values

Materiality Space Use Spatial Layout Activity Systems Sense Stimulation

Public/Private

PROXEMETRICS

CHAPTER 2

All animals, including humans, rely on territoriality for innate defense purposes. Territoriality “is usually defined as behavior by which an organism characteristically lays claim to an area and defends it against members of its own species” (Hall, 1969, p. 7). This innate reflex to defend oneself is associated with the development of a desire for privacy of personal space. Within the context of territoriality; “the distinction is carefully made between private property, which is the territory of the individual, and public property, which is the territory of the group” (Hall 1969, p. 10). Cultural importance of territory is a relevant measurement when looking at distribution of space and spatial preferences for comfortable distances between people if some aspect of these boundaries remains constant, as do specific activities within these boundaries. In looking specifically at humans, it is important to acknowledge that socioeconomics play an important role in personal boundaries, and create comparisons within a set of socioeconomic margins. When humans determine their ideal distances from other humans, and their ideal spaces for daily life, they unknowingly take measurements with their senses. The eyes, ears, and nose are used to gather data from distant people and objects, while touch is used to measure people and objects within grasp (Hall, 1969, p. 41). Although much of perception is what can be absorbed through the senses, it is also dependent on what can be ignored. “People brought up in different cultures learn as children, without ever knowing that they have done so, to screen out one type of information while paying close attention to another. Once set, these perceptual patterns apparently remain quite stable throughout life” (Hall, 1969, p. 45). This screening out process is a large portion of what differentiates cultural space preference as a learned and conditioned bias. For example, if there are two identical rooms, but one is soundproof and the other is not, members of cultures more sensitive to noise will feel more crowded in the audibly louder room, while members of other cultures may be un-phased by the noise. Hall believes that proxemics can be broken down into three levels; “one, the infracultural is behavioral and is rooted in man’s biological past. The second, precultural is physiological and very much in the present. The third, the microcultural level, is the one on which most proxemic observations are made” (Hall, 1969, p. 101), and is the level focused on in the development of the methodology of proxemetric design. This level relies upon, and includes at subconscious levels these biological and physiological substrates. The microcultural level can be broken down into three sub-levels; fixed, semi-fixed, and informal. The idea of fixed space is an important one when investigating cultural space preferences, as this level of proxemics is usually learned earliest in life. As discussed previously, territory is fairly fixed, but some fixed spaces are not as quickly apparent. “For example, although the separate dining room is fast vanishing from American houses, the line separating the dining room from the rest of the living room is quite real” (Hall, 1969, p. 106).

RESEARCH STUDIES

Cross-cultural borrowing is not as simple as one culture adopting the customs of another. “Whenever there is cross-cultural borrowing, the borrowed items have to be adapted. Otherwise the old do not match, and in some instances, the two patterns are completely contradictory” (Hall, 1969, p. 107). Introducing something like the American dining room to cultures previously without this separated space would not result in an identical representation of an American dining room. The idea of a separate room for dining would be adapted to fit the needs and daily activities of the adopting culture. This concept is most clear when comparing similar spaces in different cultural conditions. “What is fixed-feature space in one culture may be semifixed in another” (Hall, 1969, p. 111). In American culture the formal dining room is usually a fixed space as it is only used for the intended purpose of formal dining, but a dining room in traditional Japanese homes is usually semifixed because the walls are movable and allow for the space to adapt to other uses and activities. Most of what molds proxemics and cultural distance preferences are sensory. Hall cites the overarching determiner of those preferences as voice volume. Man’s “perception of space is dynamic because it is related to action - what can be done in a given space - rather than what is seen by passive viewing” (Hall, 1969, p. 115). Personal space is shaped by what can be touched, smelled, heard, seen, and felt. “It might be thought of as a small protective sphere or bubble that an organism maintains between itself and others” for physical and psychological well-being (Hall, 1969, p. 119). These “bubbles” exist in every culture, but specific distances vary based on cultural identification due to the proxemic influences described previously. Social distance, the personal space distance utilized in business and some social gatherings, “has been extended by telephone, TV, and [other communication technologies], making it possible to integrate the activities of groups over great distances” (Hall, 1969, p. 15). No longer do social acquaintances have to be within earshot of one another to communicate, lessening the relevance of the portion of Hall’s theory that relies on volume of voice. Although specific distance measurements may change with technology, cross-cultural differences in personal space will likely continue to exist. In addition to these existing distance differences, psychologists have found that respecting these distances is important to psychological health, and exposure to inadequate spaces over time may cause damage. Robert Sommer is a psychologist who stresses the importance of respecting personal space as essential in the psychological well-being of building occupants. Sommer feels that architects have more than just a responsibility to design an aesthetically pleasing structure. Sommer feels that aesthetics are not necessarily important to architecture, and should not overshadow function. “Architecture may be beautiful, but it should be more than that; it must enclose space in which certain activities can take place comfortably and efficiently. Not only must form follow function, but it must assist in every way. The personal expression of the architect must yield to the functions that the building serves”

CHAPTER 2

(Sommer, 1969, p. 5). Sommer feels that aesthetics are a want by society while function is a need. We can see the psychological and, sometimes physical, harm that comes from ignoring spatial requirements, when looking at studies of animals in captivity. “If a captive animal is given too little, too much, or the wrong kind of space, it is likely to become ill, lose its body sheen, fail to reproduce, and eventually die” (Sommer, 1969, p. 12). According to Sommer, and supporting studies, extinction may be caused, in part, by the psychological effects of over-crowding on a species. The concept of designing to personal space requirements may aid in our survival. When investigating the spacing that individuals impose upon themselves in group settings we see that it “is not random, but follows from the personality and cultural background of the individuals involved, what they are doing, and the nature of the physical setting” (Sommer, 1969, p. 68). Cultural background is not the only determination of space preference, but it is a variable that is consistent across all interactions and therefore a relevant variable. It is important to study cultural perceptions of personal space not only through intra-cultural relationships, but also through inter-cultural interactions and in conjunction with small group ecology. “The study of small group ecology is important, not only from the standpoint of developing an adequate theory of human society that takes into account the context of social relationships, but also from the practical standpoint of designing and maintaining functional spaces where human relationships can develop” (Sommer, 1969, p. 73). To understand, and facilitate cross-cultural relationships, we must first understand the spatial comfort levels of the people we are interacting with. In 1993, Susan Kent released a book featuring papers exploring cross-cultural uses of space in domestic architecture, in an attempt to show “that culture structures behavior in terms of the use of space and that the use of space structures cultural material in terms of the built environment” (Kent, 1993, p. 5). Through this investigation the question of “why some groups segment or differentiate their space and built environment more than others” can be addressed (Kent, 1993, p. 5). This inquiry provides designers with an understanding of culturally preferred spatial organization. A contributor to Kent’s collection, Amos Rapoport, investigates the relation of activities to spaces. In this study, Rapoport begins by clarifying aspects of activities, which “range from (1) instrumental aspects which are the most manifest (the nature of the activities) through (2) how activities are carried out, (3) how they are associated into systems, to (4) their meaning, their most latent aspect” (Rapoport, 1993, p. 9). These aspects show the layers of an activity and present activities as a system of events versus a single event. The idea of systemic activities creates a complex organizational order “not only 26

RESEARCH STUDIES

in space but in time and in other ways, all related to culture. It follows that what happens in one part of the system greatly influences what happens, or does not happen, elsewhere” (Rapoport, 1993, p. 9). Cultural traditions and ideologies shape specific daily activities and rituals, which then shape the systems of those activities and the space in which those activities take place. Donald Sanders, another contributor to Kent’s collection, researched behavioral connections to archeology and ancient architecture. Sanders notes that there are many objections to the strict zonal measurements presented by Hall, but agrees that “his basic conclusion, that proxemic behavior is a subconscious culturally mediated response” is unquestionable and “the creation and use of built space reflects these behavioral responses, suggest[ing] that the organization of the built environment reflects culturally determined, but subconscious decisions regarding the patterning of the world.” (Sanders, 1993, p. 48). Sanders cites two important findings from Hall’s study. First, cultural attitudes are reflected in the organization of architectural spaces. Second, people-architecture relationships can be studied without the need to actually observe the occupants. This process creates a simplification of preferences, so it unlikely to give a complete understanding of human interactions, but it creates a basis for consideration. These findings suggest that with Hall’s research we can find cultural understanding in multi-cultural communication and relationships. Hall’s opponents see his study as “a useful concept but more for showing that space has meaning than for the reasons initially proposed by Hall” (Sanders, 1993, p. 48). Many variables other than cultural identity influence spatial preferences and architectural spatial layout, but cultural identity plays an important role in the development of these preferences. Spatial considerations are important when structuring architecture to promote psychological well-being. It is said that cultural perception includes not only spatial perceptions and preferences, but our view of the world. This perceptual world view is a starting point to understanding spatial preferences. In 2007, researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign studied the brains of members of East Asian cultures and members of Western cultures to understand how “culture may shape the way our brains process visual information” as we age (Khamsi, 2007). Researchers studied “75 young and old adults (half East Asian and half Westerners)… in an fMR-adaptation study to examine differences in object and background processing as well as object-background binding” in relation to both age and culture (Goh et al., 2007, p. 44). In the Goh et al. study, ‘young’ participants are between the ages of 19 and 27 and ‘old’ participants are between the ages of 60 and 78. This study includes only the Western participants, with the East Asian participants extracted from the results of a previous study done by a group of researchers at the Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory in Singapore. The assumption based on

CHAPTER 2

previous studies is that our visual processing decreases with age. This study attempts to look at whether this decrease differs in any way between cultures. The Goh et al study “hypothesized that due to prolonged experience within an object-biased culture, elderly Westerners would show greater engagement of object-processing areas than did the elderly East Asians from the” previous study conducted by Chee et al in 2006 (Goh et al., 2007, p. 46). This hypothesis led to the assumption that older Westerners would also show less attention to background changes than older East Asians. Pre-study testing found that culture had no effect on speed of processing and memory, but both of these variables decreased with age. Steps were taken to ensure the testing environment was identical to the testing environment used in the comparison study in Singapore. During the test, participants were shown pictures of 200 objects within 200 scenes, with four images shown at one time. The main difference between cultural subjects occurs in the pattern-matching portion of the study. Stronger responses to foreground image changes occurred in members of Western versus Eastern cultures as a function of age (Goh et al., 2007, p. 46). The Goh et al. study produces three main findings “(1) decreases in neural binding processes are manifested cross-culturally in elderly adults; (2) neural processing of background scenes in complex pictures is unaffected by age or culture; and (3) object-processing regions decline with age, disproportionately in East Asians” (Goh et al., 2007, p. 48-49). Although not part of the Goh et al. study, it is thought that these differences are “due to an increased emphasis on the background, or context, of images in some Asian cultures” (Khamsi, 2007). Cultural differences in background and object processing were also observed in eye movement tracking studies that show that “East Asians are more likely than Westerners to pay attention to the background of a picture” (Khamsi, 2007). The sample sizes and methods are too small to support these findings as fact, but the hypothesis is still supported. Although the limitations of this small study ignore the many variables at play aside from culture, this study, and other studies completed by the same researchers, “show that culture is sculpting the brain” (Khamsi, 2007). Studies to support scientific findings that culture influences not only perception, but the development of the brain, provide a framework for future research of culturally based responses to space. “These findings demonstrate the malleability of perceptual processes as a result of differences in cohortspecific experiences or in cultural exposure over time” (Goh et al., 2007, p. 44). Age differences are not included as a variable in this thesis study of proxemetric design for the process of the initial development of this design tool. However, the study by Goh et al. suggests that image processing may differ per culture and age, aligning with the cultural difference in sightline and vision explored in this thesis.

RESEARCH STUDIES

Additional neuropsychological research explores culturally specific perceptual environments. Miyamoto and colleagues “hypothesized that being exposed to the Japanese perceptual environment makes people attend more to contextual information than does being exposed to the American perceptual environment” (Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006, p. 114). As a joint effort between the University of Michigan in the United States and Hokkaido University in Japan, two sequential studies were performed. Similar to the previously discussed study performed by Goh et al. regarding foreground images, this experiment looks at the attention to visuals that members of a Western (American) and an Eastern (Japanese) culture exhibit related to their physical environment. For example, “if objects are more distinctive and stand out from the background more in the American environment than in the Japanese environment, living in the American environment may direct one’s attention to distinctive and focal objects rather than to backgrounds. On the other hand, if objects are more ambiguous and difficult to distinguish from the background in the Japanese environment than in the American environment, living in the Japanese environment may direct one’s attention to the whole ﬁeld rather than to specific objects” (Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006, p. 114). According to the hypothesis of this study, levels of exposure to cultural environments change our visual perception of foreground and background. Two studies were run to test this hypothesis. Study one tested 35 American undergraduate students. Participants were asked to view randomly selected photographs (fig 2.3) andCulture cite their perception of boundaries of objects in and Affordances the photos and the number of perceived objects in the photos. Images shown were of traditional Japanese and American scenery. This study “demonstrated that Japanese scenes are more complex and ambiguous than American scenes, suggesting that objects look more embedded in the ﬁeld in the Japanese Culture and Affordances perceptual environment.” (Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006, p. 118). The

fig 2.3 Examples of the pictures of American and Japanese environments used in the Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda study. Source: Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006, p. 116)

American Environment

Japanese Environment

CHAPTER 2

results of study 1 show that in both cultural groups American city scenes were viewed as less complex than Japanese city scenes. Overall, “East Asian participants rated the pictures to be less complex and ambiguous (M=2.52) than American participants did (M=2.80)” (Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006, p. 116). In addition, respondents identified a larger number of objects within Japanese city scenes versus American city scenes. The second study looks at how the cultural differences in the perceptual environment found in Study 1 might afford culturally specific patterns of attention” by testing “thirty American undergraduates (20 females and 10 males) in the United States and 32 Japanese undergraduates (9 females and 23 males) in Japan” (Miyamoto, Nisbet, & Masuda, 2006, p. 117). Contextual changes and perceptions of context differed between American and Japanese subjects, suggesting that the differences were due to cultural influences. The results of study 2 show that “Japanese participants detected a larger number of contextual changes than American participants did, t(106) = 2.97, p < .01, d = 0.56” (Miyamoto, Nisbet, & Masuda, 2006, p. 118). Together these studies, though limited by a small sample, suggest that differences in the perceptual environment may lead to differing patterns of attention. “Both American and Japanese participants detected a larger number of contextual changes after being primed with Japanese scenes than after being primed with American scenes, t(106) = 2.97, p < .01, d = 0.56” (Miyamoto, Nisbet, & Masuda, 2006, p. 118). American participants responded more similarly to Japanese responses when American participants were shown Japanese imagery before the second study, and vice versa, showing that cultural exposure may adjust our perception. The studies by teams led by Goh and Miyamoto show the importance of foreground and background image processing in citing visual preferences of different cultures. How to Make a Japanese House reveals “that the power of a Japanese house has little to do with the rational, such as the number of square metres it encompasses, but everything to do with the spiritual” (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 25). Traditional Japanese architecture is immediately recognizable as belonging to its place and time, making it a meaningful case study for culturally significant spatial hierarchies and perception. The spatial layout of the traditional Japanese house is significant in the way it considers activities. “Within one building [Japanese architects] distinguish between three kinds of behavior. One is the behavior of human beings. It is about the relationships between the posture of human users and furniture, for example. Second is the behaviour of natural elements, such as light, heat, wind and humidity. These elements infiltrate the buildings. Third is the behaviour of buildings as observed in the larger context of the city” (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 81). The Japanese design idea is centered on activities and how a space is used, which provides an established framework to begin the process of comparing cultural personal space preferences to spatial layout and design.

RESEARCH STUDIES

Post war housing in Japan is considered to have a lifespan of about 25 to 30 years due to tax laws that allow write offs and depreciation to zero within 30 years, making Japan an incubator for domestic architectural innovation and further experimentation of space. Extreme limits due to “the radical nature of the design, the minute scale of things, the limited building budgets, the extremely dense urban settings, the extraordinary living requirements of families, the excessive amount of building regulations and the relatively short lifespan of the structures” makes these architectural innovations more challenging and important for future informed design. (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 23). Atelier Bow-Wow is an architectural practice in Japan that incorporates occupant behavior response as a key ingredient for design ideas. They feel that traditional Japanese architecture, the backbone of the Japanese city scape, has been disappearing since 1868 when Japan emerged as a modern state. “In the same year, the Gothic and baroque styles of nineteenth century European historicist architecture were imported from the West, thereby driving a wedge into the unified Japanese cityscape” (Bow-Wow, Fujimori, Menruro, Nango, & Walker, 2010, p. 123). Foreign architecture creates inconsistencies in the Japanese urban fabric. This trend continues as globalization increases. Atelier Bow-Wow acknowledges that globalization is not completely to blame for this architectural rift. “Bearing some of the blame for this urban chaos are the inadequate reconstruction measures implemented after the city was twice reduced to ruins, first in the Great Kanto earthquake of 1923 and again in the Great Tokyo Air Raid of 1945” (Bow-Wow, Fujimori, Menruro, Nango, & Walker, 2010, p. 123). Even though destruction and reconstruction has contributed to this problem, there is no denying that the once unified Japanese city scape is in danger of being forgotten. Bringing together these theories of space use, preference, and design provides a framework for the investigation of culturally sensitive spatial design solutions to ensure the endurance of a culturally adept world.

CHAPTER 3

design research + analysis

CHAPTER 3

3.1 Survey

To understand feelings of privacy within the home, and intimacy of senses, 23 people culturally associating as Japanese or Japanese American are surveyed (referenced on page 18). For the purpose of identifying key elements separating this culture from others, 77 American responses are gathered (see Appendix A.2 and A.3 for a complete list of responses). A Likert scale is used to indicate preference for different conditions. Many responses from American participants and Japanese participants do not show great differences, which may be due to the smaller sample pool of Japanese respondents in comparison to American respondents, or to the fact that over half of the Japanese respondents identify as Japanese American, suggesting that their association with American culture has influenced their perceptions to align with respondents associating as American. Further, many who identified as Japanese have lived in America for a number of years. A few key questions regarding household size, activities within the home, interactions between occupants and between occupants and the general public, and privacy and sensory preferences show different trends between the two groups.

American How many family members live in your home, including you?

How many people live in your home, including you?

1 2 3 4 5 or more 34

Japanese

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Japanese responses show a higher likelihood of large family units living under one roof with the most common family size in one household noted as two or four people. Americans noted their most common household size to be one or two. A similar finding occurs with the number of people per household. Japanese responses noted two or four people per household as the most common. American responses overwhelmingly noted two people as the most common household size (fig 3.1). Cooking practices show a great cultural difference with 52% of American respondents cooking and eating the same space, and only 29% of Japanese respondents noting that they cook and eat in the same space (fig 3.2). Interactions within the home, and between inhabitants and the general public, show preference differences between cultural group responses. American respondents have a higher preference for blocking public access to their residential outdoor spaces than Japanese respondents with 73% of American identifying respondents preferring no public access to their outdoor space, while only 48% of Japanese identifying respondents shared that preference. Japanese participants indicate less need to block the public from accessing the exterior spaces of the home. Within the home, American participants note the bedroom and bathroom as the spaces they prefer extreme privacy through no sightlines and high noise isolation. Japanese respondents felt the bedroom and bathroom should maintain this same degree of privacy, but they also identified several other rooms where this level of privacy is preferred (fig 3.3). The sensory stimulation showing the largest difference between cultural groups relates to noise. Noise is identified by Hall to be the sense preference most likely to change with culture. Survey results show that Japanese participants overwhelmingly identified hearing as the least intimate of the senses, with 48% of Japanese identifying respondents ranking it as a 1 out of 6 (1 is least intimate, 6 is most intimate), and 87% of Japanese identifying respondents ranking hearing between 1-3 signifying a non-

American

fig 3.1(opposite page) Survey Responses Regarding Household Size Source: by author fig 3.2 Survey Responses Regarding Cooking & Eating Habits Source: by author

Japanese Do you cook and eat in the same space?

yes no 35

CHAPTER 3

American Select all spaces in your home you prefer to be separated from public (outside the home) access.

parking entry outdoor space no need for separation In which spaces are you not comfortable being seen by people who are inside your home? parking entry bathroom bedroom outdoor space kitchen living room dining room In which spaces are you not comfortable being heard by people who are inside your home? parking entry bathroom bedroom outdoor space kitchen living room dining room

fig 3.3 Survey Responses Regarding Interactions Between Occupants and the General Public Source: by author

Japanese

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

American

Japanese How intimate is hearing another person?

1 - Least 2 3 4 5 6 - Most Which of the following sounds do you dislike in the more private spaces of your home?

traffic nature media restroom people talking intimate interaction. American participants identified hearing as a moderately intimate sense, with the largest group (43%) raking hearing as a 3 out of 6 for intimacy (fig 3.4). This idea also arose during a conversation with architect Kaz Kishimoto (Appendix B), who mentioned acoustical separation as a less important aspect of design in Japanese homes. Traffic noise is greatly disliked in both cultures, but Japanese respondents appear to have a higher dislike for these noises. Restroom noises also show some dislike in both cultures, but American respondents appear to have a higher degree of dislike (fig 3.4). This may show a higher preference in Japanese homes to have noise isolation from the exterior, but not the interior, while Americans may prefer the opposite. When asked to rank spaces in the home from most public (1) to most private (8), Japanese and Japanese American respondents rank the spaces as follows: (1) parking; (2) entry; (3) outdoor space; (4) living room; (5)dining area; (6) kitchen; (7) bedroom; (8) bathroom.

fig 3.4 Survey Responses Regarding Noise and Hearing Preferences Source: by author

CHAPTER 3

When asked to rank spaces in the home from most public (1) to most private (8), American respondents rank the spaces as follows: (1) entry; (2) parking; (3) outdoor space; (4) living room; (5)kitchen; (6)dining area; (7) bathroom; (8) bedroom. When asked to rank the intimacy of different sensory interactions from least intimate (1) to most intimate (6), Japanese and Japanese American respondents rank the senses as follows: (1) hearing; (2) obstructed sight; (3) unobstructed sight; (4) smelling; (5) feeling body heat; (6) touching. When asked to rank the intimacy of different sensory interactions from least intimate (1) to most intimate (6), American respondents rank the senses as follows: (1) obstructed sight; (2) unobstructed vision; (3) hearing; (4) smelling; (5) feeling body heat; (6) touching. Survey responses suggest that private areas of the Japanese home do not physically connect, have few temperature extremes, have slight olfactory infiltration, may or may not have visual access to interior or exterior portions of the home, and may be infiltrated by noise. A majority of Japanese respondents note that a door encloses their main bathroom and bedroom from the rest of the home, supporting that a lack of physical connection aligns with spaces being identified as private. It is noted that outdoor spaces (courtyards and patios) within the home are preferred to be separated from public access, supporting this as the most private exterior space. Survey responses are broken down into age groups to better compare, and analyze, results in relation to the neuroscientific studies mentioned in Chapter 2. The largest differences found involve the intimacy of sight and views. Older survey participants are grouped as respondents between the ages of 55 and 74 (37 respondents). Younger survey participants are grouped as respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 (13 respondents). Older Japanese (7 respondents) identified participants ranked ‘unobstructed site’ as more intimate, with an average ranking of 3.17 out of 6 (most intimate). In contrast, of younger participants identifying as a culture other than American (2 respondents), gave an average rank for intimacy for ‘unobstructed site’ of only 2.0 out of 6, the same rank as given by, older Americans (30 participants). Younger Americans (11 participants) ranked unobstructed views as 2.7 out of 6. Older Japanese identifying participants ranked obstructed sight as much more intimate than younger culturally identified Asian Americans, with a ranking of 1 (least intimate), and young Americans, with a ranking of 1.82 out of 6. This data suggests a change in perception of intimacy in different cultural groups as a function of age and may be consistent with hypotheses that suggest visual processing of object/background changes differentially with culture and age. However, the small sample sizes and many competing, and confounding, variables limit generalization of these studies. Broad generalizations should not be implied. 38

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

The urban townhome is a traditional Japanese residential typology dating back to the early 1600s. The earliest of this typology are referred to as machiya, which “simply means ‘houses of the machi,’ a term which can denote both an independent township and a ward or district within a larger settlement” (Morris, 2006, p.1). The machiya (fig 3.5) differs from the other Japanese vernacular houses (minka and noka) by the fact that it is inherently urban while the others are inherently rural. The machiya is traditionally a two-story narrow detached home.

3.2 Case Studies

Characteristics of the traditional machiya are seen in modern urban residential homes throughout Japan, with the most common single family home continuing to be a narrow detached row home or townhome, leading to fig 3.5 Traditional Machiya Source: “preservation strategy,” n.d.

the typological selections of the following six case studies. “Traditionally, the Japanese used to live in close communication with their neighbours…It was after the Second World War that the American influence in Japan became very big and the country shifted in another direction” (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 47). It was this historical marker that caused the first major shift in the Japanese idea of living and family. Another shift in built ideology occurred “after the burst of the bubble in 1989 [when] Japanese people realized that foreign influence felt strange and started to feel sympathy for the compact, old-style Japanese city again” (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 47). These two ideological shifts, post-war and post-bubble, create two unique residential design eras. Of the following case studies, all are from the postwar era, and three are from the post-bubble era, with the hope of creating a comprehensive understanding of residential design through key historical design shifts. Before the war, “the Japanese family used to be very ambiguous. Families lived close to each other and shared many things. After the bubble 39

CHAPTER 3

KINESTHESIA

touch between people [edward t. hall]

[proxemetrics] touch between spaces

PHYSICAL CONNECTION THERMAL RECEPTION temperature exchange between people

temperature exchange between spaces

TEMPERATURE CHANGE OLFACTION scent transfer between people

scent transfer between spaces

SCENT TRANSMISSION

AURAL

speech volume necessary to hear adjacent person

noise transfer between spaces

NOISE TRANSMISSION VISION

detail level visible of adjacentperson

visibility between spaces

SIGHTLINES 40

burst…a house became a place for leisure and hobby” and the family became ambiguous again (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 54). Due to tax structure in Japan, it is common for a family to build a home for themselves to serve their purpose rather than moving into a home built for another family. “The single-family home in Japan is designed for one specific family,” creating a space that emulates that family’s specific wants, needs, and preferences (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 24). These homes are not always designed by architects, but due to the fact that most lots in urban Japan are extremely small, architects are often commissioned as instruments to solve a design puzzle. “High inheritance taxes often force the subsequent generation to subdivide the plot and sell the property” leading to extremely small lots that are often irregular in shape (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 23-24). The job of the architect is to design a home that turns an uninhabitable piece of land into a comfortable living space. Much of the design intent and challenge in Japanese homes is the strategic dealing between inside (uchi) and outside (soto). This challenge is not referring to interior and exterior spaces, but to inside and outside as groups of people. “Uchi (inside) is always related to the point of view of the speaker, and the key ‘inside’ unit is that of the family group” (Daniels, 2008, p. 117). It is in this relation that case studies are analyzed. All case studies and sense relationships are investigated in two ways, from “uchi” and “soto”. Privacy is investigated both on the inside of the home (within the family group) and the outside (between the passersby and the family group). Each case study is analyzed in terms of sense stimulations occurring between spaces. Kinesthesia is defined by Hall as the ability for two people to touch one another. In this study, kinesthesia is referred to as physical connection and is defined as two spaces physically connected to one another, without the barrier of a door or wall. Spaces physically separated from the other spaces within the home can be seen as providing the same opportunity for touch intimacy that Hall’s intimate distance provides. To show these separations, physical barriers in the home are diagrammed to show the spaces which are most connected and least connected to the rest of the home. Thermal reception is defined by Hall as the ability for one person to feel another’s body heat, or temperature exchange between two people. In this study, thermal reception is referred to as temperature change and is investigated by looking at temperature exchange between spaces. In Hall’s theory, the stronger the temperature exchange is between two people, the more intimate the interaction. This temperature exchange is a measure of intimacy just as temperature transmission in the home is a measure of intimacy. The more temperate spaces in the home are the most private, while the spaces with the largest potential for temperature transmission are the most public. Temperature creators on the inside of the home include the bathtub/shower and the kitchen. Temperature creators on the exterior of the home include general weather and direct sunlight through glazing.

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Olfaction is defined by Hall as scent transfer from one person to another including perfume, body odor, or breath, with the common society acceptance of these smells determining how they affect a culture’s intimate distance. In this study, olfaction is referred to as scent transmission and is investigated by looking at scent transfer between spaces. In Hall’s theory, stronger scent transmission is more intimate. In this study, scent transmission is more prominent in public spaces. Scent centers within the home are the bathroom and the kitchen. Scent centers outside the home include general city generated scents and traffic.

fig 3.6 (opposite page) Sensory Transmission Translation Source: by author

Aural or oral is defined by Hall as the necessary voice volume required to be heard by another person. A whisper is the most intimate and a loud voice is the least intimate. Hall identifies noise as the main contributor to cultural differences in proxemics. In this study, aural is referred to as noise transmission and is investigated by understanding noise transmission between spaces to find which spaces are generally quiet and which are generally loud. The louder the space is, the more public the space should be. The communal space of the living room is identified as the largest contributor to sound within the home due to the propensity for gathering. City sound, such as traffic and pedestrians talking, are identified as the largest contributors to sound infiltration from outside the home. Vision is defined by Hall as the ability for one person to see detail of another person. Hall measures vision through detail and distortion, with the intimate distance providing the most detailed view of the other person and the most distorted view due to extreme close proximity. For the purposes of this study, vision is referred to as sightlines and is investigated through obstructed and unobstructed views to understand visual privacy. Sightlines are taken from communal spaces within the home to understand “uchi” privacy and from the street, or other exterior public pathways, to understand “soto” privacy. An unobstructed view implies a public space, while no view implies a private space. Sightlines play a large role in Japanese home design. In contradiction to privacy ideals of some other cultures that prefer private spaces to be visually closed off, “Japanese would rather opt for 50 percent transparency so that [they] can feel a larger space around [them]” (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 39). To make their inherently small urban homes feel larger, Japanese families may be willing to trade visual privacy for the feel of more space. This does not mean that it is comfortable for Japanese families to have completely transparent homes. With neighbors in close proximity, there is a fine balance between letting the natural light into the home and “display[ing] their private life to the street” (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 319).

CHAPTER 3

ISHIZU HOUSE Year: 1957 Location: Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan Architect: Kiyoshi Ikebe Typology: Single Family, 2-Story (with ground floor split level), Detached Home Occupants: 2 Adults, 3 Children Size: 1165 s.f. Surroundings: Residential The Ishizu House was designed as a case study home sponsored by Modern Living Magazine, completed during the same time period as the case study homes sponsored by Art & Architecture Magazine in the United States (Ishizu, 2013). The children of the original owners have taken turns living in the home, leading to multiple remodels. Changes to the exterior can be seen in fig 3.9 and fig 3.10. Conversions include changing interior â&#x20AC;&#x153;walls from concrete to wood and adding an extra study room, to adapt to changes in lifestyles of the owners.â&#x20AC;? Each child has remodeled both the kitchen and bathrooms (Ishizu, 2013). Walls and a door have been built around the original open entry way to provide privacy (fig 3.12), and a wall has been built around the original parking area to create a semiprivate outdoor space serving as a transition to the entry (fig 3.11). Tokyo is the most densely populated area in Japan. The city is located in the southern Kanto region of the country (fig 3.7) and is bordered by the Edowaga River to the east and

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

fig 3.7 (opposite page top) Tokyo Location Source: by author fig 3.8 (opposite page bottom) Ishizu House Neighborhood Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 fig 3.9 (top left) North Facade Source: Ishizu, 2013 fig 3.10 (top right) Original North Facade Source: Ishizu, 2013 fig 3.11 (bottom left) Entry Source: Ishizu, 2013 fig 3.12 (bottom right) Front Door Source: Ishizu, 2013

CHAPTER 3

fig 3.13 (top left) Ishizu House View from Children’s Room to Living Room. Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 71 fig 3.14 (top right) Ishizu House View to Children’s Room Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 72 fig 3.15 (middle left) Stair to Living Room Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 71 fig 3.16 (middle right) Living Room Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 73 fig 3.17 (bottom left) Living Room from Second Level Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 69 fig 3.18 (bottom right) Bedroom Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 71 fig 3.19 (opposite page) Ishizu House Drawings Adapted from Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 73

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Bedroom

the mountains to the west. As of October 1, 2012, Tokyo is home to over 13 million people, which accounts for approximately 10% of the total population of Japan. With a total area of 845 square miles, Tokyo has a population density of approximately 15640 people per square mile, making it the most densely populated area in Japan (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2014).

Bath

Second Level

Living

Kitchen

Children’s Room Bath

Ground Level

The neighborhood of Shinjukuku (fig 3.8) is known as a leading downtown district in Tokyo. The ward is about 7 square miles with 327712 total occupants as of January 1, 2015 (“Shinjuku City Official Website,” n.d.), meaning it has a population density of approximately 46816 people per square mile, a denser population than the city of Tokyo as a whole. The house is located on a residential street in close proximity to the busy urban center. The home’s point of entry is an exterior entry pedestal leading into the living room. The ground level is a split level, so to enter the kitchen or children’s room occupants must step down from the living room into these rooms. The only room on the lowest floor that has a door for complete privacy is the bathroom. The outdoor space is physically adjacent to the living area and visually adjacent to the children’s room. The children’s room contains three adaptable open spaces with furniture that can be moved or changed, depending on occupant need for space at the time. The second level does not have doors, but is private because the bedroom and private bathroom are the only spaces on that level.

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection The Ishizu House has very few physical barriers. Even in the more private second level bedroom and bathroom, no physical barrier exists. Occupants have to travel up a set of stairs to reach the bedroom and bathroom. Providing no other program on the second level creates no reason to travel to that level unless that bedroom or bathroom is the destination. This leaves unwanted parties out of the space visually and physically, but not aurally. The garden is separated from the rest of the home through operable glass facades. Space separations are mostly marked by level changes instead of walls. The only space on the entry level is the living room, suggesting this is the area used for entertaining. The kitchen, lower level bathroom, and childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room are a few steps down, but still physically connected to the living space suggesting some need for separation and privacy, but extreme privacy is not required. The upper level bedroom and bathroom are the most disconnected from the living room, suggesting these are the most private spaces within the home.

Bedroom

Bath

Second Level

Living

Kitchen

Garden

Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room Bath

Ground Level fig 3.20 Ishizu House Physical Barriers Source: by author

Physical Barrier

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Temperature Change

Bedroom

The Ishizu House is designed to be visually exposed to sunlight and the outdoors. All facades contain a large amount of glazing causing extremes in temperature, hot or cold depending on the season. In one of the remodels, a solid wall was placed against the exterior faĂ§ade of the home near the entry. It is likely that this wall was added for visual privacy on the street side of the home instead of to block heat or cold. A large overhang on the roof provides shading for the glazed facades, cutting down on the extreme temperature changes.

Bath

Second Level

Living

Kitchen

Garden

Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room Bath

Ground Level fig 3.21 Ishizu House Temperature Diagram Source: by author

Mild

Extreme

The garden area is the area of the home with the largest range of temperatures because it is completely exposed to the elements. Heat and cold may travel through the glass facades into the living area and childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room, making these two spaces the most temperature extreme interior spaces of the home. The bedroom and bathroom on the second level are slightly variable in temperature. The living space is double height allowing heat or cold to travel up and into the more private second level. Temperature extremes appear to be centered in gathering areas and areas for rest, suggesting that these areas are the most used areas of the home.

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission Due to the orientation of the Ishizu House, exterior city scents are only able to enter through the street side of the home. The garden provides a buffer on the backside of the home, allowing city scents to dissipate before reaching the interior. The solid nature of the street side façade blocks most of the external scents, but some scents can travel through the two exterior doors on the street façade into the entry and kitchen areas. Inside the home, the kitchen and two bathrooms serve as scent centers. On the lower level, these two areas are located in close proximity to one another, allowing their scents to mingle and disperse together. Their orientation in relation to the rest of the home, in the center of the L layout, assists the scents in dispersing before reaching the ends of the home where the living area and children’s room are located. Scents have the potential to be trapped in the corner of the home which houses the kitchen and bathroom. On the second level, scents created in the bathroom are mostly contained due to placements of walls and the level separation from the rest of the home. The spaces in the home with the least scent interference are the living area, children’s room, garden, and bedroom. This suggests that these areas are meant for gathering and spending extended periods of time.

Bedroom

Bath

Second Level

Living

Kitchen

Garden

Children’s Room Bath

Ground Level fig 3.22 Ishizu House Scent Diagram Source: by author

Weak Smell

Strong Smell

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Noise Transmission A majority of exterior noise at the Ishizu House originates from the street, but is blocked by the inoperable glazed façade on the street side of the home. Some noise is able to travel through the façade, but most of it is blocked from interior hearing. Bedroom

On the interior, the living room is the main gathering space, making it the main noise generator. The living room is the one space in the home directly connected to all other spaces. Noise from the living room can travel outside to the garden and all other areas on the bottom level of the home through an operable glazed façade. The sound from the living area can travel up through the double height space, but is greatly dissipated by the time it reaches the upper level bedroom and bathroom, making these very quiet spaces.

Bath

Second Level

Living

Kitchen

Garden

Children’s Room Bath

Ground Level fig 3.23 Ishizu House Noise Diagram Source: by author

Quiet

The more private areas of the home, the children’s room, the bathrooms, and the bedroom are also the most quiet, suggesting that noise is a distinction between public and private.

Loud

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines Visual access for occupants and passersby is very similar, although opposite. Views are provided of the same spaces, but where passersby have an obstructed view, occupants have a clear visual field and where passersby have a clear view, the view of occupants is obstructed. In the original design, before remodels and modifications, the glazed facades allowed a public view into a majority of the first level of the home. Drapes were, and are, available to close off these views, leaving them obstructed. The entryway was designed to be an open platform allowing for unobstructed view from the street at all times. Glazed facades are located on all sides of the home allowing a view not only into the home from the street, but through the home into the garden. A remodel provides a solid wall on a portion of the faĂ§ade separating the living room from the street. This has greatly reduced the view into the home from the street.

Bedroom

Bath

Second Level

Living

Kitchen

Garden

Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room Bath

Ground Level fig 3.24 Ishizu House Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Bedroom

The viewpoint from the interior of the home is taken from the living room, as the only communal interior living space. Due to orientation, the living room has a view of every space on the lower level. Because of the level separation, and a low barrier on the edge of the loft style second level, occupants in the living room can see up toward the second level space, but cannot see into the spaces themselves.

Bath

The bathroom on the lower level obstructs the occupants view into the space, for privacy, with doors and partitions. The breakup of visual access through the home shows that the ground level is a mostly shared space, with access to all, while the second level is a very private area for occupants only.

Second Level

Living

Kitchen

Garden

Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room Bath

Ground Level fig 3.25 Ishizu House Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

CHAPTER 3

TOWER HOUSE Year: 1966 Location: Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan Architect: Takamitsu Azuma Typology: Single Family, 6-Story, Detached Home Occupants: 2 Adults, 1 Child Size: 700 s.f. Surroundings: High Density Residential, Mixed Use & Commercial The Tower House was designed as a private residence for the architect and his family. Today the house is occupied by Azumaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s daughter, also an architect, and her family (Skudraite, 2012). When the 1964 Olympics were hosted in Tokyo, new roads were cut. This oddly shaped lot is one of the spaces left over from these road cuts (Yng, 2010). The lot size is just 220 square feet, with the actual footprint of the building being slightly smaller. The entire home provides approximately 700 square feet of total floor area distributed amongst the 6 levels (Bansal, 2012). The home is located in the neighborhood of Shibuya (fig 3.27). This area is dense and is mixed used, containing residential and commercial spaces, with a population density significantly higher than that of the city of Tokyo (approximately 33755 people per square mile) (Shibuya City Office, 2008). This is, in part, due to the scale of structures in this neighborhood. Many of the residential structures, including those neighboring the Tower House, in Shibuya are high rises, with few 52

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

fig 3.26 (opposite page top) Tokyo Location Source: by author fig 3.27 (opposite page bottom) Tower House Location Adapted from Source: “Google Maps” 2015 fig 3.28 (top) Front Streetscape Adapted from Source: Tokyowing, 2010 fig 3.29 (bottom) Rear Streetscape Adapted from Source: Tokyowing, 2010

CHAPTER 3

fig 3.30 (top) Entry Canopy Source: Tokyowing, 2010 fig 3.31 (middle left) Corner Condition Source: Tokyowing, 2010 fig 3.32 (middle right) Rear Facade Source: Tokyowing, 2010 fig 3.33 (bottom left) Living/Kitchen Area Source: Fumarola, 2009 fig 3.34 (bottom right) Living/Kitchen Area Source: Fumarola, 2009 fig 3.35 (opposite page) Tower House Drawings Adapted from Source: Azuma, 2012

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Child’s Room

Fifth Level

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Bath

Third Level

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

Parking

Ground Level

Storage

Basement Level

single family homes, a change from the smaller scale structures present when this home was built in the 1960s. The rare longevity of this home has allowed the neighborhood to grow and change around it. The home is located on a busy urban street, which serves as a main Tokyo thoroughfare for both cars and pedestrians. The front façade of the home faces this busy street (fig. 3.28), while the back of the home faces a quiet alleyway (fig. 3.29). These two scales of street use meet one another at the southern edge of the Tower House, and are the reason the home is the shape that it is. The living spaces in the home are either raised above ground or placed in the basement to provide a level of privacy off of the street. The ground level is used only for parking and entry. To transition occupants from the public sidewalk to the private home, they step up to an open entry way, marked by both stairs and a concrete canopy above (fig 3.30). This dividing line is a visual marker, but does not block the public from entering the entry space as it is open to the city. Azuma was stated as saying that “we don’t need a living room, as the city itself is a living room” (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 34). As a result of this thinking, occupants first enter into a space that technically serves as a living/kitchen area, but looks to be sufficient only for cooking and eating, while inviting occupants to move up through the remainder of the home. Each level serves a different and specific function, with the original home featuring built in furniture to prevent the change of space use.

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection The Tower House is a vertical home in every sense of the term. Spaces are separated physically by floors, instead of by walls. Very few spaces on each level are further separated by walls and doors. Occupants move through the home by moving up and down the stairs. The Parking area and outdoor entry space just off the sidewalk serve as public buffers and are therefore separated from the interior entry area by walls and doors. The bathroom on the third level provides a physical barrier from the stairwell for the bathtub, but the toilet is simply behind a wall, providing visual, but no auditory or physical separation from occupants in the stairwell. The stairwell does not contain any doors, meaning that it serves as a continuous open shaft through the northwest portion of the home. This shaft provides only visual privacy between spaces due to the level change, but no auditory or physical privacy, leaving all areas of the home open to all occupants at all times, suggesting that visual privacy is the most important when seeking time alone.

Physical Barrier

Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Fifth Level

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Bath

Third Level

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

Parking

Ground Level

fig 3.36 Tower House Physical Barriers Source: by author fig 3.37 (opposite page) Tower House Temperature Diagram Source: by author

Storage

Basement Level

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Mild

Extreme

Temperature Change Child’s Room

Fifth Level

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Bath

Third Level

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

Parking

Ground Level

Storage

Basement Level

The thick concrete walls of the home provide thermally insulated spaces, but the glazing on the south façade allows for significant heat gain/loss, depending on the season, to each level of the home. The entry platform is open to the sky, so is most susceptible to temperature extremes. The parking area is covered and insulated with concrete walls; making it an ideal space for exterior heat or cold to gather, but it is more protected than the entryway because of the cover. A majority of glazing is on the entry façade (south), causing the most temperature extreme areas in the home. Small windows on the alley side (east) and in the stairwell (northwest) provide slight temperature extremes, but not significant due to their small size. The interior of the home produces heat from two sources; slight heat from the shower area of the bathroom, and a majority of interior heat from the living/kitchen area. Neither of these significantly adds to the heat gain of the home due to the level separations and insulating concrete structure. The most temperature stable space is the basement level storage area. The bathroom, bedroom, and child’s room remain fairly temperate. It appears that the areas in the home meant for gathering are more susceptible to temperature extremes. The living/kitchen area gains heat from both interior and exterior sources and the exterior spaces of the home are the most temperature extreme, supporting Azuma’s philosophy that living should be done outside the home and in the city.

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission The Tower House’s location on a busy urban street, in a dense neighborhood, makes it susceptible to exterior scents from traffic. Very few openings, along with thick concrete walls, however, are able to block out most exterior scents. Scents originating on the street can travel up onto the entry platform and into the parking area, but dissipate, or are blocked by concrete walls, before entering the interior of the home. Scent centers within the home are the dining/kitchen level and the bathroom level. Due to the small square footages and single use layout of these levels, the levels housing these scent centers are infiltrated heavily by the scents created within the spaces. Other levels, due to floor and ceiling separations remain scent free, as smells from scent centers dissipate before leaving their own level of the home. The layout of this home maintains very contained spaces, creating little transfer of any scent between levels.

Weak Smell

Strong Smell

Child’s Room

Fifth Level

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Bath

Third Level

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

The child’s room, bedroom, and storage areas, being most removed from scent centers imply that these spaces are not meant for guests and are the more private areas in the home.

Parking

Ground Level

Storage fig 3.38 Tower House Scent Diagram Source: by author

Basement Level

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Quiet

Loud

Noise Transmission Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Fifth Level

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Bath

Third Level

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

Parking

Ground Level

The aural nature of the Tower House is extremely similar to olfaction, aside from the bathroom areas. The same exterior elements creating smells in this area of the city are the same elements creating noise (traffic and pedestrians) and they therefore originate from the same location. Noise is better able to travel through walls than smells, but due to the thick concrete exterior of the building, a high level of exterior noise insulation is created. City noises can travel through the parking area and onto the entry platform, but are dissipated or blocked by concrete walls before entering the home. On the interior, the living/kitchen area is the largest producer of noise just as it is the largest producer of interior smells. Noise created on this level dissipates as it travels up through the stairwell, and is unlikely to reach the other levels due to both the dissipation and the concrete floors separating the levels. The loudest interior area of the home is the living/kitchen area with all other interior levels being protected from noise pollution, suggesting that the living/dining area is meant for gathering and entertaining. The exterior city is the greatest noise generator on this site, supporting that the city, and outside of the home locations, should serve the purpose of gathering and living areas.

Storage

Basement Level

fig 3.39 Tower House Noise Diagram Source: by author

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines It is clear to see which areas in the Tower House are private based on visual access. From the exterior, the public has unobstructed visual access to a majority of the ground level. This level houses only parking and an entry platform, suggesting that these two areas are not private in nature. The second level is slightly raised above the street, providing a greater degree of visual privacy. An obstructed view of the majority of this level is provided due to the glazed entry façade. The current homeowner has placed drapes on this façade for increased visual privacy; the availability to pull back those drapes and be exposed is available. Due to the height of the structure, and the concrete canopy above the entry, the third, fourth, and fifth levels are visually private despite the glazed façade on the south end of the home. The basement level is visually separated from public view with no glazing and a sunken floor accessed only from the interior of the home.

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

Child’s Room

Fifth Level

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Bath

Third Level

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

Parking

Ground Level

Storage fig 3.40 Tower House Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author

Basement Level

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Fifth Level

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Bath

Third Level

On the interior it is clear to see which areas are meant to be shared and used for gathering and which areas are intended for retreat. From the living/kitchen area, the most communal space in the home, occupants cannot see any other level of the home, supporting the idea that visual privacy is most important when seeking solitude. Occupants within this space have an obstructed view of the entry platform and city, but most views are insular within the space. The childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room, bedroom and bathroom are not visible until reaching those levels suggesting those spaces have the largest need for visual privacy. The parking and storage areas are not visible from the interior communal space either, but this may be due to the fact that these spaces are not meant for living, so visual connectivity is not necessary.

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

Parking

Ground Level

Storage

Basement Level

fig 3.41 Tower House Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

CHAPTER 3

AZUMA HOUSE Year: 1976 Location: Sumiyoshi, Osaka, Japan Architect: Tadao Ando Typology: Single Family, 2-Story, Detached Row Home Size: 700 s.f. Surroundings: Residential The Azuma House sits on a 613 square foot urban parcel and includes 700 square feet of total floor area on a 366 square foot footprint (“Azuma House - Tadao Ando - Great Buildings Architecture,” 2013). The neighborhood of Sumiyoshi (fig 3.43) is a “densely built, workingclass district” of Osaka, enjoying a semi-tropical climate (Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 22). As of 2012, it encompasses an area of 3.6 square miles with 74,673 households, and has a population density of approximately 43,000 per square mile (“Sumiyoshi ward,” 2012). Sumiyoshi is situated at the southern end of the city of Osaka and is home to many historic structures and Osaka City University. The University hosts exchange programs with overseas universities, creating a more diverse population than the rest of the city (“Sumiyoshi ward,” 2012). The City of Osaka is well known for its cherry blossoms and the cherry blossom festival. The home itself is located on an east-west oriented site on a quiet residential street (fig 3.44), set just off a busy urban thoroughfare. The site is extremely narrow, sitting

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

between homes of similar height, but larger in square footage. The Azuma House and adjacent homes are built out to the street, as is typical in Japanese row homes, creating a clear separation of where the private home begins and the public space ends. Surrounding homes are immediately adjacent on the North, South, and East sides of the home (fig 3.46), with the West facade facing the street and providing the only entry/exit point (fig 3.45). This small cast-in-place concrete structure is composed of “three equally sized rectangular volumes: two enclosed volumes of interior spaces separated by an open courtyard” of the same volume, serving as the main circulation system of the home (Hsu, 2011). The exterior facades contain no glazing, creating the necessity for ample light to travel through the top of the house. The courtyard serves as a light well, stairwell and breezeway. Occupants enter the home on the ground level from the street side (west end) into an entry alcove fig 3.42 (opposite page - top) Osaka Location Source: by author fig 3.43 (opposite page - bottom) Azuma House Location Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 fig 3.44 (top) Azuma House Streetscape Adapted from Source: Hsu, 2011 fig 3.45 (bottom left) Azuma House West (front) Facade Source: Hsu, 2011 fig 3.46 (bottom right) Azuma House Surrounding Adjacencies Adapted from Source: Hsu, 2011

CHAPTER 3

fig 3.47 (top left) Bedroom Source: Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 30 fig 3.48 (top right) Kitchen/Dining Area Source: Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 28 fig 3.49 (middle) View through Courtyard to Kitchen/Dining Source: Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 24-25 fig 3.50 (bottom) Bridge from Bedroom to Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room Source: Futagawa, 2007, p. 118 fig 3.51 (opposite page) Azuma House Drawings Adapted from Source: Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 22

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Bedroom

Child’s Room

Second Level

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Ground Level

Bedroom

Bath

Section

Kitchen/ Dining

Child’s Room

Courtyard

Living

with no door separating itself from the street. After stepping into the entryway, visitors are faced with a concrete wall in front, glazing to the right, and an entry door to the left. After entering into the home through the entry door, occupants find themselves in the living room, able to look through a glazed wall through the courtyard and into kitchen/dining space beyond. The home has only one restroom, located at the back of the home through the kitchen/dining space. To travel to the second level, one must enter the courtyard to find the stairs. The stairs travel up to a breezeway connecting a bedroom and child’s room. The breezeway is meant only for circulation on this level, unlike the courtyard below, which is meant for gathering, relaxation, and reflection. The second level breezeway provides the only climatic protection for the lower level courtyard, which is otherwise exposed to all weather. Although the Azuma Home is very small in square footage, space is used efficiently to provide well proportioned, comfortable spaces for occupants. Thick concrete walls are contrasted by transparent glazing to provide a private oasis. It is important to note that there is no dedicated parking area.

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection Through the use of doors, most spaces in the home can be physically separated from the rest. No spaces are physically connected at all times aside from the Courtyard and upper level breezeway. Greater physical connectivity suggests less of a need for privacy. The entry space is most public from the exterior of the home. An opening, but no door, is the only separating factor from the public street. The courtyard, living room, and kitchen/dining area are most public from the interior of the home due to clear glazing as the only separator of spaces. On the lower level, the living area, courtyard, and kitchen/dining area are visually connected at all times, but are physically separated into independent rooms through glass partitions, suggesting that physical separation, rather than visual separation, allows for the proper level of privacy in these spaces. On the second level, the bedroom and children’s level are also visually connected, but not physically connected, through glazed partitions across the second level breezeway.

Bedroom

Child’s Room

Second Level

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Ground Level

Bedroom

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Child’s Room

Courtyard

Living

Section fig 3.52 Azuma House Physical Barriers Source: by author

Physical Barrier

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Temperature Change Bedroom

Due to the close proximity of neighboring buildings, the Azuma House relies on the central courtyard and interior glazing to bring natural temperature sources into the home. The space most exposed to exterior temperature is the bridge connecting the bedroom and child’s room, which is completely open to the sky. The courtyard is exposed aside from the portion covered by the second level walkway. This space is visually connected only to the sky and does not provide a view of the city, creating a peaceful escape from city life while still enjoying the outdoors and feeling the sunshine.

Child’s Room

Second Level

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Ground Level

Bedroom

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Child’s Room

Courtyard

Living

Section fig 3.53 Azuma House Temperature Diagram Source: by author

Mild

Extreme

All areas in the home adjacent to the courtyard are characterized by glazed facades facing the courtyard. This allows temperature changes to filter through the courtyard into the bedroom, child’s room, living room and kitchen/dining room. Small skylights on the east end, adjacent to the child’s room, and west end, against the wall of the bedroom, provide light, but contribute to temperature extremes, to one end of the bedroom and to the entry alcove. The concrete structure provides heavy insulation to the lower levels of the home where less glazing and direct light is found, keeping the living, kitchen/dining, and bath areas temperate. The temperature extremes in the bedroom, courtyard, and child’s room suggest that these may be the areas of the home where most of the active living takes place, while the more temperate, and darker, kitchen/dining, and living spaces are reserved for more relaxing activities.

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission Located away from a busy urban street, the Azuma home is not as susceptible as some other case studies to city smells such as exhaust and traffic related scents. Although home to a cherry blossom festival, the fragrance of the cherry blossom is slight and not noticeable. The scent of the cherry blossom does not make its way into the home even when the flowers are in bloom. The thick concrete structure on the exterior provides good insulating qualities to exterior scents, although some may travel through the courtyard into the rest of the home. The major exterior scent center is the adjacent street, providing slight traffic scents. A majority of the scents affecting occupants of the Azuma House originate from the interior. The bathroom and kitchen/ dining areas provide the most noticeable scents within the home, but due to the open courtyard, most of these scents dissipate before making their way to other rooms even when doors are left open. The kitchen/dining area and bathroom are connected to one another, but are separated from the rest of the home, creating space for scents to gather without disrupting occupants in other spaces.

Bedroom

Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Second Level

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Ground Level

Bedroom

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Courtyard

Living

Section fig 3.54 Azuma House Scent Diagram Source: by author

Weak Smell

Strong Smell

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Noise Transmission Bedroom

The quiet residential street location of the Azuma House means that traffic noise is not a large concern, but some noise may make its way from the closely located busy urban boulevard. The largest exterior noise contributors come from closely located neighbors. Surrounding homes are light wood structures, so the insulating qualities of those homes are most likely low. The thick concrete walls of the Azuma House keep most neighboring noises out of earshot, but some may travel up and over the walls into the open courtyard.

Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Second Level

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Ground Level

Bedroom

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Noise centers within the home are the gathering areas including the kitchen/dining and living rooms, although the cool, shaded nature of these spaces promote relaxation and inhibit most loud activities. The smallness of the spaces in the home are ample for the family, but are not large enough for entertaining, creating less of a worry for noise pollution in other areas of the home caused by gatherings.

Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Courtyard

Living

Section fig 3.55 Azuma House Noise Diagram Source: by author

Quiet

Loud

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines The home is surrounded by unpenetrated concrete walls, and little physical connection to public outdoor spaces, creating a limited site line into the home from the exterior of the home. Passersby, only located on the east (entry) end of the home, can clearly see into the entryway with no obstruction, but a concrete wall just inside the entry blocks a majority of views. The only portion of the home visible from the street is a small area of the living room, but passersby must look into the entryway and around the concrete wall to have any view of the occupants inside.

Bedroom

Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Second Level

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Ground Level

Bedroom

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Courtyard

Living

Section fig 3.56 Azuma House Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Bedroom

Child’s Room

Second Level

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Ground Level

Bedroom

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Child’s Room

Courtyard

Living

Section fig 3.57 Azuma House Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

On the interior, occupants have a clear view of almost the entire home from either of the gathering spaces (kitchen/dining and living rooms). When in the living room, occupants look through a glazed interior façade into the courtyard and the kitchen/ dining beyond. Looking in the same direction from the living room also provides a slight view into the second level bedroom through the courtyard, but the view is partially blocked by the bridge above, so the entire bedroom is not visible from the ground level. Occupants in the kitchen/dining area can look through glazing across the courtyard into the living area and up through the courtyard to the child’s room on the second level. As in the living room, this view to the second level is obstructed by the bridge above. The bath can only be viewed from the kitchen/dining area, which provides an obstructed view through a door separating the spaces. Views suggest that the kitchen/dining, courtyard, and living areas are the most public within the home since they are the most communal and visible.

CHAPTER 3

PLASTIC HOUSE Year: 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Architect: Kengo Kuma Typology: Single Family, 3-Story, Detached Home & Studio Occupants: 2 Adults Size: 1859 s.f. Surroundings: Residential The Plastic House houses a family of two (a photographer and his mother, who is a writer), and is used as a private residence and a photo/ writing studio (“Plastic House,” n.d.). The basement level serves as the mother’s studio space. The home is located in a dense residential neighborhood (fig 3.59), on a quiet street (fig 3.61), surrounded closely by slightly smaller structures (fig 3.60). All areas of the home are connected to an outdoor space, blurring the line between interior and exterior, and creating a public living environment. The house is built mostly out of glass fiberreinforced plastic (fig 3.63) (“Plastic House,” n.d.), hence the name of the home. The material is used for its translucent quality, recalling the qualities of the traditional shoji screen. The walls of the home appear to glow at night due to the translucency of the plastic material. The home was built for entertaining. The flat roof provides a large terrace for guests, natural lighting for photo shoots, and an area for displaying work. The open living area and 72

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

fig 3.58 (opposite page top) Tokyo Location Source: by author fig 3.59 (opposite page bottom) Plastic House Neighborhood Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 fig 3.60 (top) Plastic House Front Facade Adapted from Source: Maisto, 2009 fig 3.61 (bottom) Plastic House Streetscape Adapted from Source: Maisto, 2009

CHAPTER 3

fig 3.62 (top left) Living/Kitchen/Dining toward Garden Source: â&#x20AC;&#x153;House in Tokyo,â&#x20AC;? 2002 fig 3.63 (top right) Plastic Exterior Material Source: Kuma, 2007, p. 212 fig 3.64 (middle) Living/Kitchen/Dining toward Parking Source: Bognar, 2005 fig 3.65 (bottom left) Sunken Bedroom Courtyard Source: Bognar, 2005 fig 3.66 (bottom right) Garden Source: Bognar, 2005 fig 3.67 (opposite page) Plastic House Drawings Adapted from Source: Kuma, 2007, p. 212

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Bedroom

Bath

garden are visually connected throughout the home providing an ideal space for large parties (fig 3.66). The basement houses a studio and living area for the mother. The studio area is used as a show space, so visitors are constantly filing in and out (Bognar, 2005).

Bedroom

Second Level

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Garden

Ground Level

Studio

Bedroom

Bath

Basement Level

Storage

Terrace

Parking

Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Garden

The entire ground level is visually open to the public, but some areas require more privacy. The plastic material allows for a layer of transparency and connectedness to the exterior, while still providing visual privacy. Visitors enter the home from the parking area on the street side of the home. Once inside visitors find themselves in a large open area with a linear kitchen to the right and a set of stairs to the left (fig 3.63). The stairs can be used to go down to the basement level, where the mother lives and has her studio. The lower level bedroom has a private sunken courtyard (fig 3.65), which is stacked underneath the ground level garden. Light is brought through to the sunken courtyard through a slatted screen, serving as a portion of the floor of the garden above. Visitors can travel back up the stairs to the living/kitchen/dining area (fig 3.62) to access the garden at the back of the home. Above this public level is the ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private level with two bedrooms and a bathroom. The stairwell is separated from all spaces on this level, showing the privacy requirement. Up one more level is a storage area and a roof deck for entertaining.

Bedroom

Section 75

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection Each level of the Plastic House has different variations of physical connections. The basement level is a mix of public space (the mother’s studio) and private space (the mother’s living quarters). The distribution of physically connected and separated space mimics this contrast between public and private. The studio space is public and therefore physically connected to a larger area. The bedroom and bathroom are private, so they are physically separated. The ground level is completely public, seen by the lack of physical barriers. The barriers that do exist between the living/kitchen/dining area and the garden area can be opened to create a continuous space. The parking and street area is physically separated, but only to provide a boundary line between the public area of the street and the public area of the home. The second level is the most private level of the home. All spaces are physically separated from one another, and it is the only level in which the stairwell is a separated space from the remainder of the level. The stair is still a public space at this level since visitors must pass through the second level to reach the rooftop entertainment space. Doors and physical disconnections are necessary on this level to keep visitors out of the owner’s private bedrooms and bathroom.

fig 3.68 Plastic House Physical Barriers Source: by author

Physical Barrier Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Garden

Ground Level

Studio

Bedroom

Bath

Basement Level

Storage

Terrace

Parking

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Section

Bath

Bedroom

Garden

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Mild

Extreme

Temperature Change Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Garden

Ground Level

Studio

Bedroom

Bath

Basement Level

Storage

Terrace

Parking

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Section

Bath

Bedroom

Due to the translucency of the plastic material used on the exterior of the Plastic House, the entire space is naturally lit, but temperature changes from exterior sources, such as weather, are mostly prevalent in the outdoor areas. One benefit of the plastic structure is that it lets light in without the susceptibility to temperature changes associated with glazing. The spaces susceptible to exterior temperature changes are the parking, garden, basement level sunken courtyard, and second level terrace areas. The parking and garden areas are both the most public, and most temperature extreme, areas of the home. The terrace and sunken courtyard have obstructed direct interaction with exterior temperature changes due to the fact that the sun, and other temperature creators, must filter through slated plastic panels to enter both spaces. These panels provide a level of protection, while still allowing some heat and cold to pass through. These more temperate outdoor areas are the spaces attached to private areas in the home and are thus more private. The more temperature extreme outdoor areas are attached to the more public areas of the home and are thus more public.

Garden

fig 3.69 Plastic House Temperature Diagram Source: by author

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission As a densely populated city, it is obvious that traffic is a large contributor to smell. The Plastic House is not located on a busy street, but is in close enough proximity to the center of the city that exact adjacency to a boulevard is not necessary for traffic scents to reach the home. The plastic exterior serves as a sufficient barrier to city scents, but the outdoor areas, especially the parking area due to proximity to the street, are vulnerable to exterior smells. The garden area is adjacent to other homes, not to the street, so the smells on this end of the home are less strong and more dissipated. The interior of the home has several scent centers. Both bathrooms and the living/kitchen/dining area all emit smells to the rest of the home. The living/kitchen/dining area is the most public interior area of the home and is the only interior space on the ground level, so the smells from cooking and entertaining in this space are not likely to travel into the other areas of the home. Smells dissipate before traveling through the stairwell to other levels. The bathrooms are located in very private areas that are separated by walls, blocking the scents from reaching other rooms.

Weak Smell

Strong Smell Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Garden

Ground Level

Studio

Bedroom

Bath

Basement Level

Storage

Parking

Bedroom

Second Level

Terrace

fig 3.70 Plastic House Scent Diagram Source: by author

Bath

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Section

Bath

Bedroom

Garden

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Quiet

Loud

Noise Transmission Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Garden

Ground Level

Studio

Bedroom

Bath

Basement Level

Storage

Terrace

Parking

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Section

Bath

Bedroom

Garden

The plastic structure may block the transmission of other senses, but sound insulation is lacking. The home was designed for entertaining, so auditory separation may not be as important as other methods of separation. Sound easily travels through the thin walls and facades. The majority of exterior sounds come from the street and parking area as this is where passersby walk and drive. The sound dissipates slightly as it reaches the home, but still transfers through the plastic faรงade. The home has several entertainment spaces, all contributing noise pollution to the rest of the home. The living/kitchen/dining area is the main entertaining space, and therefore the loudest space. Sounds from this space also travel outside the home. The garden area is an extension of the ground level entertainment space, adding more volume to the noise potential. The studio space in the basement is enclosed with heavy walls to retain the soil, creating an insulated space. Public events are held in the basement, but noise created there is likely to remain isolated. The second level is the most private and most quiet. It seems to serve as a barrier between the ground level and the rooftop, suggesting a change of atmosphere for event spaces based on volume and acceptable noise exposure.

fig 3.71 Plastic House Noise Diagram Source: by author

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines Of all the case studies investigated, this is the most visually accessible to the public, and plays the most with transparencies of facades to control privacy. Since the design was created for entertaining, a welcoming, and connected, front faรงade brings guests into the home. The only exterior sightline comes from the street and parking area. From that space, passersby have a clear view through the entire ground level, from the parking area through the living/ kitchen/dining area, to the rear garden area. The rest of the home is partially, or entirely, blocked from view, suggesting that all areas not on the ground level are private and reserved for more exclusive events or only for the use of the occupant. From the street, a portion of the bedroom is visible, but this view is mostly obstructed when seen through the slatted faรงade of the terrace. The large square footage of the home allows the ground floor to be transparent while still providing ample space for private gathering areas such as the studio in the basement and the rooftop.

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Garden

Ground Level

Studio

Bedroom

Bath

Basement Level

Storage

Terrace

Parking

fig 3.72 Plastic House Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Section

Bath

Bedroom

Garden

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View Bedroom

Bath

When comparing proportions of visual spaces from exterior and interior view, it is clear that only slight differences exist. The home is just as visible from the interior gathering spaces as it is from the exterior, suggesting that very little of the home was designed for occupant privacy. Occupants and visitors are meant to see the same spaces of the home as the public does when driving or walking by.

Bedroom

Second Level

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Garden

Ground Level

Studio

Bedroom

The Plastic House is an open book. It is a display piece to show the display pieces of its occupants. The ground level is a public space visually, not just for occupants, but for everyone. The second level is private for both occupants and visitors. The basement and rooftop are both semipublic because they are blocked from public view but are open to invited parties.

Bath

Basement Level

Storage

Terrace

Parking

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Section

Bath

Bedroom

Garden

fig 3.73 Plastic House Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

CHAPTER 3

RAINY SUNNY Year: 2008 Location: Suginami, Tokyo, Japan Architect: Mount Fuji Architects Typology: Single Family, 2-Story, Detached Home & Office Occupants: 2 Adults Size: 855 s.f. Surroundings: Residential The clients requested a quiet private home, which maintains openness to nature and its surroundings. The home sits on a 1165 square foot urban parcel and includes 855 square feet of total floor area on an 625 square foot footprint (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 201). Suginami is densely residential. The average Japanese home is built on the north side of the building area to allow sunlight into the home from the south. Due to this configuration, residents park their cars in carports in front of their house allowing passersby to look directly into the interior through the carport. This leads to many homeowners leaving their windows closed or draped to maintain privacy (Nuijsink, 2012, p. 202). Due to the request for privacy from the homeowner, the architect placed the home diagonally on the site, oriented east west, (fig 3.75) to allow for two different outdoor spaces. The open area facing the street (fig 3.77) is semi-public. It is used to park the ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s car and as an entryway. The outdoor space located off the street, on the southern end of the home, provides a private oasis open to the sky. This configuration 82

Rainy Sunny

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

fig 3.74 (opposite page - top) Tokyo Location Source: by author fig 3.75 (opposite page - bottom) Rainy Sunny Site Plan Adapted from Source: Nuijsink, 2012, p. 207 fig 3.76 (top) Streetscape Adapted from Source: Harada et al., n.d. fig 3.77 (bottom) Front Facade and Public Garden Adapted from Source: Harada et al., n.d.

CHAPTER 3

fig 3.78 (top left) Living/Dining from Second Level Source: “Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio,” 2010 fig 3.79 (top right) View of Interior from Terrace Source: “Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio,” 2010 fig 3.80 (middle) View of Living/Dining from Study Source: Harada et al., n.d. fig 3.81 (bottom left) View of Kitchen from Living/Dining Source: Harada et al., n.d. fig 3.82 (bottom right) View of Living/Dining from Entry Source: Harada et al., n.d. fig 3.83 (opposite page) Rainy Sunny Drawings Adapted from Source: “Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio,” 2010

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Loft

Bath

Study

Closet Terrace

Second Level

Public Garden

Bath

Living/ Dining Bath Kitchen

Bedroom

Private Garden

Ground Level

Study

Living/ Dining

Kitchen

Closet

Bedroom

provides reprieve from the closely located neighboring homes, allowing airflow and sunlight to enter, where adjacent walls may have been present before. Although located in central Tokyo, Rainy Sunny sits on a quiet residential street with residential structures of similar height (fig 3.76). The front of the home is solid concrete to allow for privacy from the urban condition, while the rear of the home is mostly glazed to allow for natural sunlight and transparency away from the street frontage. Since the only residents of the home are a couple (they have grown children who no longer live at home) the house was designed with minimal interior separation. Visitors enter at the semi-public outdoor space at the street side of the home, through a solid, non-descript door that appears to blend in with the surrounding concrete structure. Once inside, occupants are greeted by warm wood details and a large open living space with a glazed faรงade. The living space contains an area for dining (fig. 3.78), and connects to a kitchen enclosed in a concrete box (fig 3.81). The double height space of the living area, along with the glazed faรงade separating it from the private garden, make the home feel expansive and larger than its small square footage. The top level of the home serves as a home office with a study which opens in a loft style fashion to the living/dining area below (fig 3.80). The second level has a small outdoor terrace (fig 3.79), connected to the rest of the home through the large glazed faรงade surrounding the private garden.

Section 85

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection Very few spaces in the home are physically separated. The only rooms with doors to create private environments are the bedroom and the bathrooms. Although the Private garden can be physically separated, the glass faรงade is designed to be fully opened to create one cohesive living space encompassing the private garden, living/dining area and kitchen. The second level studio is lofted over the first level with no physical barrier aside from a handrail for safety

Physical Barrier

Loft

Bath

Study

Closet Terrace

Second Level

The public garden is physically separated from the rest of the home and visually and physically serves more as part of the street than part of the private home. The wall holding the front door serves as a barrier, threshold, and defined line between the public and private space. This suggests that even in the most insular and private of homes, a semi-public threshold is necessary for comfort.

Public Garden

Bath

Living/ Dining Bath Kitchen

Bedroom

Private Garden

Ground Level

Study fig 3.84 Rainy Sunny Physical Barriers Source: by author fig 3.85 (opposite page) Rainy Sunny Temperature Diagram Source: by author

Living/ Dining

Section

Kitchen

Closet

Bedroom

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Temperature Change

Mild

Loft

Extreme

Bath

Study

Closet Terrace

Second Level

Public Garden

Bath

Living/ Dining Bath Kitchen

Bedroom

Private Garden

Ground Level

Study

Living/ Dining

Kitchen

The public garden, private garden, and second level terrace are open to the sky, creating the most temperature extreme spaces of the home. The large glazed faรงade between the private garden and living/dining area make the living/ dining and kitchen areas the most susceptible to temperature change. Orientation and lack of glazing leave the bedroom and bathrooms protected from temperature extremes. The outdoor spaces meant for reflection and relaxation have the largest extreme of temperatures through the year, while the more private areas of the home are the most temperate. The diagonal orientation of the home on the site allows for light to enter the home through glazing on the faรงade rather than through skylights and clerestories as in many other homes on similar lots. The public garden is open to the elements, causing the potential for temperature extremes to bring people into, and through, the home to the private garden. The entire home serves as a temperature neutral environment to create a threshold between that which is public (the public garden) and that which is private (the private garden). The home is a vessel to pull occupants through.

Closet

Bedroom

Section 87

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission As a densely populated city, traffic is a large contributor to smell. Rainy Sunny is not located on a busy street, but is in close enough proximity to the city center that exact adjacency to a boulevard is not necessary for traffic scents to reach the home. Thick concrete walls separating the home from the street serve as barriers to scent. Scents are able to enter the home through glazed faรงades surrounding the living space. With the diagonal orientation of the home, and the close proximity of neighboring structures, exterior wedges are formed (the public and private gardens), which serve as scent collectors, trapping city scents and making it possible for them to enter the home when any doors are opened. On the interior of the home, the three bathrooms and the kitchen serve as scent centers. Due to orientation, scent is unable to travel far from each space. One of the ground level bathrooms is located directly inside the entry allowing smells to drift out the front door or gather in the entry, away from communal spaces. The second ground level bathroom is located on the perimeter of the home with a small window. This bathroom has a glazed barrier between the toilet room and the shower room, supplying further scent separation. The upper level bathroom is also on the perimeter of the home. Any scents that escape do not travel much further than the adjacent closet space. The study and the bedroom, the places that require the most quiet for occupant comfort, are the least susceptible to scent.

Weak Smell

Loft

Strong Smell

Bath

Study

Closet Terrace

Second Level

Public Garden

Bath

Living/ Dining Bath Kitchen

Bedroom

Private Garden

Ground Level

Study

Living/ Dining

Section

Kitchen

Closet

Bedroom

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Noise Transmission

Quiet

Loft

Loud

Bath

Study

Closet Terrace

Second Level

Public Garden

Bath

Living/ Dining Bath Kitchen

Bedroom

Private Garden

Ground Level

Study

Living/ Dining

Section

The solid walls on the street side of the home block out most street borne sounds, but the glazed faรงade surrounding the living space potentially allows sounds created by neighbors to enter the home. The open gardens, both public and private, are most susceptible to exterior noises, but due to the quiet nature of the neighborhood location, even in close proximity to the louder city surroundings, the exterior spaces are positioned to be spaces of quiet. Only one communal space is provided in the home, creating only one noise center. Although the home is open, with few doors separating spaces, the layout of spaces provides a barrier between the living spaces and areas requiring quiet. The study is separated from the living area by a level offset. The private garden can be closed off by glazed doors to provide a quiet and peaceful outdoor environment. The quieter spaces in the home are not only private spaces, but are private spaces where occupants are meant to linger and spend a large amount of time, including sleep and work.

Closet fig 3.86 (opposite page) Rainy Sunny Scent Diagram Source: by author

Kitchen

Bedroom

fig 3.87 Rainy Sunny Noise Diagram Source: by author

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines The public has no clear view into the home, but has a clear unobstructed view to areas around the home, provided by the diagonal orientation of the layout. Neighbors are able to see into the home and into the private garden on the west end of the home, but due to the high fence around the private garden and the thick concrete wall on the west end of the living/dining area, the only view that neighbors have is obstructed. Their obstructed view, however, is of a majority of the home. The areas in the home that are not visible in any way from the exterior are the bedroom, the bathrooms and a majority of the upper level, which are all spaces in the home that require extreme privacy.

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View Loft

Bath

Study

Closet Terrace

Second Level

Public Garden

Bath

Living/ Dining Bath Kitchen

Bedroom

Private Garden

Ground Level

Study

fig 3.88 Rainy Sunny Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author

Living/ Dining

Section

Kitchen

Closet

Bedroom

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View Loft

Bath

Study

Closet Terrace

Second Level

Public Garden

Bath

The most public area of the home, the public garden further shows its separation from the rest of the home with the limited, and obstructed, that occupants within the home have.

Living/ Dining Bath Kitchen

Sightlines within the home are taken from the one communal gathering area, the living/dining space. From this space it is clear to see how visible the entire home is from the interior, with few visually private areas. Occupants have a clear view of a majority of the lower level and upper level spaces. The bathrooms are mostly not visible from the communal spaces, except for the bathroom directly connected to the living space. This bathroom is most likely used by visitors given its adjacency to an entertaining space, creating less of a necessity for complete privacy requested by the occupants. The bedroom, upper level bathroom and closet are the least visible from the interior suggesting that these are the most private spaces of the home.

Bedroom

Private Garden

Ground Level

Study

Living/ Dining

Section

Kitchen

Closet

Bedroom

fig 3.89 Rainy Sunny Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

CHAPTER 3

THE MACHI HOUSE Year: 2011 Location: Fukuyama, Japan Architect: UID Architects Typology: Single Family, 2-Story, Detached Home Occupants: 2 Adults, 2 Children Size: 1488 s.f. Surroundings: Residential, Mixed Use & High Density Commercial The Machi House sits on a 1027 square foot urban parcel and includes 1488 square feet of total floor area on an 813 square foot footprint (“Machi-House / UID Architects,” 2012). Fukuyama is a highly populated city located in the Hiroshima Prefecture of Western Japan (fig 3.90). The area is known for having a warm and sunny climate. “In May and October nearly half a million roses—the city flower of Fukuyama—come into bloom…and bring their color and fragrance to the streets of Fukuyama” (“Fukuyama Tourist Information - A Modern City, Rich in Nostalgia,” 2002). The city encompasses approximately 322 square miles along the coast of the Seto Inland Sea. As of 2008, Fukuyama city has a population of almost half a million people in almost 200,000 households (“FUKUYAMA NOW Fukuyama City Overview,” 2007). The home itself is located on a street with heavy vehicle traffic (fig 3.92). The area behind the home, the north 92

Parking Lot

Machi House

Parking Structure

Gas Station

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

façade, is a surface parking lot, the area just across the street from the front (south) façade is a high rise parking structure, and a gas station is located just a few parcels away (“Google Maps,” 2015) (fig 3.90). The street includes both residential and commercial buildings creating a hub of activity during all hours of the day. The south façade of the building embraces the street frontage with a large cantilever of the second level over the parking area, blurring the lines between public and private (fig 3.93). This urban townhome is located on a north-south oriented site and is a modern interpretation of a traditional Japanese machiya. The home is surrounded by buildings on the east and west facades, in extremely close proximity to one another (fig 3.93), shading a majority of the sunlight into the home. Most daylight is let in through skylights, clerestories (fig 3.96) and light wells originating from the roof of the home, with few windows on the facades. A busy urban street borders the south façade, and a large parking

fig 3.90 (opposite page - top) Fukuyama Location Source: by author fig 3.91 (opposite page - bottom) Machi House Location Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 fig 3.92 (top) Street on South End of Home Adapted from Source: Lei, 2012 fig 3.93 (bottom) Street Frontage Adapted from Source: “Machi-House / UID Architects,” 2012

CHAPTER 3

lot borders the north faĂ§ade, creating very little opportunity for privacy, and another reason few windows are placed on the facades. The home includes two levels with the following rooms/spaces: parking; entry; interior garden; (2) bathrooms; bedroom; terrace; kitchen; dining; living; childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room with a small loft area; laundry room; and storage (fig 3.99). Occupants and guests enter on the first level of the south end of the home from the street. The entry is through a gravel parking area (fig 3.98). After entering, visitors can either proceed to the remaining spaces on the first level, the main bedroom bathroom, laundry area and small indoor garden, or they can take the stairs located just inside the entryway to the second level, which houses the communal areas. The stairwell serves as a light well and an indoor garden (fig 3.97). On the second level the stairwell is surrounded by a perforated storage wall to allow for efficiency of space, while maintaining safety around the opening and visual continuity throughout the second level. fig 3.94 (top left) Interaction with Street Source: UID, 2011 fig 3.95 (top right) Terrace Source: UID, 2011 fig 3.96 (middle left) Clerestories and Skylights Source: UID, 2011 fig 3.97 (middle right) View of Stairwell from Bathroom Source: UID, 2011 fig 3.98 (bottom) Entry Source: Lei, 2012

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Bathroom Terrace

Kitchen

Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Second Level

Loft

Parking

Entry Garden

Bathroom

Storage

The upper level consists of an open plan room with the kitchen, living room, and dining room sharing one space. Although the children’s area does not have any doors separating it from these communal spaces, it does maintain some visual privacy with a small bathroom and closet creating a visual barrier between the rooms. Located above the children’s room is a small loft area with a panoramic window providing views of the parking lot located on the north façade of the home. A private terrace is located off of the kitchen, providing a tranquil outdoor space with a visual connection to the sky only (fig 3.95).

Bedroom

Laundry

Ground Level

Loft Terrace

Kitchen

Parking

Section

Dining

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

fig 3.99 Machi House Drawings Adapted from Source: UID, 2011

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection

The lower level bathroom is visually connected at all times, but can be separated into two independent rooms (shower/bath and sink/toilet) through a glass partition and door, suggesting that physical separation, rather than visual separation, allows for the proper level of privacy in this space. Although the children’s area is physically connected to the rest of the communal areas, the second level bathroom and closet provide a large amount of physical separation from the communal spaces.

Bathroom Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Second Level

Loft

Parking

Entry Garden

Bathroom

Bedroom

sidewalk

Through the use of doors, most spaces in the home can be physically separated. The spaces which are physically connected at all times are the kitchen, dining, living, garden, and children’s areas, and the parking and entry areas. Greater physical connectivity suggests less of a need for privacy. The parking and entry spaces are most public from the exterior of the home, while the kitchen, dining, living, and garden spaces are most public from the interior of the home.

Storage

Laundry

Ground Level

Loft Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Section

fig 3.100 Machi House Physical Barriers Source: by author

Physical Barrier

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Temperature Changes

BathTerrace

Kitchen Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Second Level

Loft

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Bedroom

sidewalk

Parking

Storage

Laundry

Ground Level

Loft Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Section

fig 3.101 Machi House Temperature Diagram Source: by author

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Mild

Due to the close proximity of neighboring buildings, the Machi House relies on skylights and clerestories to bring natural light into the home. In addition to illumination, this glazing brings interior temperature changes. The space most exposed to these extremes is the second level terrace, which is open to the sky. This space is visually connected only to the sky and does not provide a view of the city, creating a peaceful escape from city life while still enjoying the outdoors and feeling the sunshine. The flooring of the terrace is perforated, allowing natural light to flow into the parking area, while also protecting it from extreme temperature change. The skylights are located between spaces on the second level (between the dining and living room and between the living space and the children’s room. These spots of temperature extremes within the home create a type of boundary between spaces that may not be noticed, but is felt when passing from one temperate area to another. The living room is the interior space most susceptible to exterior temperature influence, suggesting that mimicking the temperature of the outdoors creates a want to linger and gather, since the living space is the most communal space in the house. The bedroom and bathroom are the most climate temperate zones, suggesting they are not meant for gathering.

Extreme

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission

The parking and entry way are exposed to the exterior, making them a gathering area for city smells. The second level terrace is open to the sky, but smells dissipate as they travel up, and over, the solid wall that blocks the terrace from exterior view. The bedroom has an operable door at the north end of the home allowing smells inside if the door is kept open. It is clear that the more exterior public spaces in the home are more accepting of scents from the city. Scent centers on the interior of the home include the kitchen and dining area, the bathrooms and the laundry area. The kitchen and dining spaces are open to the home, allowing smells to waft through the house and to the terrace when the exterior doors are left open. Kitchen and dining related scents make their way to the first level of the home through the open stairwell. The bathrooms and laundry space can be closed off to the rest of the home, keeping smells inside the spaces. If the doors are left open, scents travel through the home. The first level bathroom is separated into two spaces through a glass partition allowing for further isolation of scents.

Bathroom Terrace

Kitchen

Living

Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Second Level

Loft

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Storage

Bedroom

Laundry

Ground Level

Loft

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Garden

Living

Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Section Weak Smell

fig 3.102 Machi House Scent Diagram Source: by author

Dining

sidewalk

The scent of the city is strong, from traffic exhaust to food to the roses in bloom in May and October. The scent of the rose may be welcome, while the scent of traffic is not, but the home cannot discriminate. The Machi House is mostly impenetrable to city born scents due to the thick, scarcely penetrated, exterior walls.

Strong Smell

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Noise Transmission

BathTerrace

Kitchen Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Second Level

Loft

Entry Garden

Bathroom

Bedroom

sidewalk

Parking

Storage Laundry

Ground Level

Loft

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Section Quiet

fig 3.103 Machi House Noise Diagram Source: by author

The solid walls of the Machi House mute most exterior sound, but some glazing and open spaces allow sounds to penetrate. The site location, bounded by a busy urban street and a parking lot, make traffic noise the largest contributor of exterior sound. The open parking area and entry are most affected by noise. Exterior sounds enter the home through the glass façade of the stairwell/garden. The terrace remains quiet due to configuration and solid walls, despite being open to the sky. The bedroom opens to a parking lot through glazing, allowing sounds in, but remaining less vulnerable to noise than the front of the home, because less traffic moves through a parking lot than a street, and because there is no pedestrian path at the rear of the home. Inside the home, common areas serve as the largest creators of interior noise. The kitchen, dining, and living areas share a space, creating a mixture of sounds over the stairwell, which filters downstairs. Since the ground level bathroom has a glass wall separating it from the stairwell, and a door exists between the stairwell and the first level hallway, the sound does not travel far once it reaches the first level. Some interior sounds travel to the second level terrace if the doors are left open, but the terrace remains mostly quiet. Although the children’s room is physically connected to the living area, most sound is blocked from entering by the barrier created by the second level bathroom and closet.

Loud

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines

The second level includes no façade glazing and thick, solid, walls, creating a space extremely private from the public view. The loft area above the children’s room includes a wall of glazing on the north end of the home, but the glazing is so far removed from the ground level that only a small portion of the interior ceiling is visible to passersby. The north end of the home is also the location of a large parking lot, meaning less traffic and public eyes than the south end of the home where the public street and sidewalk

100

Bathroom Terrace

Kitchen

Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Second Level

Loft

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Bedroom

sidewalk

Although the home has little glazing, it is visible from the street level. When passing by on the street side of the home (south), the public has clear visual access to the parking area, as the design treats this as an extension of the public space. The parking area is distinguished from the public sidewalk only through material (the sidewalk is concrete, while the parking area is gravel). From the street, public passersby have an obstructed view into the garden area and the first level bathroom. Both of these spaces are separated from the public space through glazing. Sight is partially obstructed through a single tree and other landscaping in the garden area. The public has a sliver view of the second level through the stairwell. The glazing between the parking area and the garden, and between the garden and the bathroom, removes extreme privacy from the first level bathroom area. The bedroom on the north end of the home includes glazing, but is less visible than the front of the home due to the location of the glazing low on the façade.

Storage

Laundry

Ground Level

Loft

Terrace

Kitchen

Dining

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Section

fig 3.104 Machi House Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Bathroom Terrace

Kitchen

Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Second Level

Loft

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Bedroom

sidewalk

Parking

Storage

are located. The second level is visually disconnected from the city, creating a more visually private space. Sightlines within the home are taken from communal areas, with views into the more internally private spaces. The communal areas are the kitchen, dining, and living spaces, and the general circulation spaces including the entry, stairwell, and first level hallway. All of the spaces in the home are visually connected, but the terrace, children’s room, loft, and bedroom are the most visually separated, implying that these are the spaces in the home that require more visual privacy from other members of the household. Views into most spaces, excluding the children’s room, can be obstructed through the use of doors. It is important to note that some of the more publicly visible spaces from the exterior including the bedroom, and first level bathroom, are some of the more visually private spaces when viewed from the interior, suggesting a different expectation of privacy from occupants and nonoccupants.

Laundry

Ground Level

Loft

Terrace

Kitchen

Dining

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Section

fig 3.105 Machi House Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

101

CHAPTER 3

3.3 Synthesis

Comparing survey results with the case study findings, informs how privacy influences layout and orientation. An analysis of the case studies reveals patterns of sensory relationships. A spatial adjacency matrix approach shows sense stimulation relationships within, and between, spaces in the homes. The matrix serves two purposes: (1) to show how affected each space is by the identified sense and (2) to show sense adjacencies between spaces or how sense stimulation occurring in one space affects other spaces within the home. Bedroom refers to the main bedroom. The bathroom is the space housing the bath/shower. Toilet room refers to the space housing the toilet. The living room is the main living space. The dining room is the space where occupants eat. The kitchen is the space where occupants cook. Parking is where cars are left. Balcony/terrace refers to an outdoor area located on an upper level. Patio/courtyard refers to an outdoor area on the ground level. The entry is the first area of the home experienced. Storage is space not used for living, but used to store items. Guest/childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room refers to secondary sleeping spaces. City refers to everything outside the foot print of the home.

102

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Bedroom PR

Bathroom

PR PR

Toilet Room

PR PR

Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace

Storage

PR PR

PU PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PU PR PR PR PR PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR

PU PU

Patio/Courtyard Entry

According to the survey, touching another person is considered the most intimate of interactions, so private areas should have less physical connections.

PU PU

PU PU PU

Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

PR = Identified in the survey as a private space PU = Identified in the survey as a public space fig 3.106 Physical Connection Matrix Source: by author

Always Connected Sometimes Connected Never Connected

Physical Connection Physical connectedness refers to spaces never separated by walls or doors. Always connected means spaces are found to be physically connected in all of the case study examples. Sometimes connected means spaces are found to be physically connected in some of case studies. Never connected means spaces are never found to be connected in the case studies. Spaces in the home with more connections can be interpreted as the more public spaces of the home, while spaces with the least connections can be seen as the most private areas of the home. The survey tells us that kinesthesia is the most intimate of the five sense stimulations, so spaces with the least physical connections are the most private. This analysis suggests that the bedroom, bathroom, toilet room, and storage are the most private spaces, both within the home, and in relation to the exterior (general public). The most public spaces within the home are the living room, dining room, and kitchen, but these spaces are extremely private from the general public. The guest/childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room is somewhat public within the home, but is very private to passersby. The parking area, patio/courtyard, and entry are extremely public to the exterior, or city, but are extremely private within the home. The balcony/terrace, although sometimes connected to the exterior, is very private both to the interior and the exterior.

103

CHAPTER 3

Temperature Change Temperature change looks at temperature extremes within the home. The weather of the city affects spaces from the exterior, while the bathroom and kitchen are the main temperature producers within the home. Extreme refers to spaces most affected by temperature shifts. Variable refers to spaces sometimes affected by temperature shifts. Mild refers to spaces rarely affected by temperature shifts. Public spaces are more prone to temperature extremes than private spaces. The survey tells us that thermal reception is the most intimate, aside from kinesthesia, of the five sense stimulations. Spaces with the least extremes in temperature are the most private. This analysis suggests that the bedroom, guest/childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room, and storage area should be the most private, with the bathroom and toilet room as the next most private spaces within the home. The living room, dining room, and kitchen are suggested to be the most public within the home. The parking area, patio/courtyard, and entry are suggested to be extremely public with large temperature shifts.

104

Bedroom PR

Bathroom

PR PR

Toilet Room

PR PR

Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace

Storage

PU PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PU PR PR PR PR PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR

PU PU

Patio/Courtyard Entry

PR PR

According to the survey, feeling the presence of another person (body heat, etc.) is an intimate interaction, so private areas should have less propensity for temperature extremes.

PU PU

PU PU PU

Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

PR = Identified in the survey as a private space PU = Identified in the survey as a public space fig 3.107 Temperature Change Matrix Source: by author

Extreme Variable Mild

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

According to the survey, smelling another person is a slightly intimate interaction, so private areas should have less scent transmission.

Bedroom PR

Bathroom

PR PR

Toilet Room

PR PR

Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace

Storage

PU PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PU PR PR PR PR PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR

PU PU

Patio/Courtyard Entry

PR PR

PU PU

PU PU PU

Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

PR = Identified in the survey as a private space PU = Identified in the survey as a public space fig 3.108 Scent Transmission Matrix Source: by author

Strong Smell Some Smell Weak Smell

Scent Transmission Strength of scent transmission refers to how affected spaces in the home are by both interior and exterior scent centers. City (exterior) scent creators include traffic, and in some cases landscaping. Interior scent centers include the kitchen and bathrooms. Strong smell refers to spaces always infiltrated by interior/ exterior scents. Some smell refers to spaces infiltrated by scents some of the time. Weak smell refers to spaces which are mostly scent neutral. Public spaces are more susceptible to scent infiltration. The survey tells us that smelling another person is slightly intimate, but not extremely intimate, so scent transmission may not be the best indicator of a space being either public or private. This analysis suggests that storage spaces and the guest/childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room should not experience scent infiltration from the exterior, while the parking area and entry should almost always experience city scents. The only spaces within the home that have a strong scent adjacency to the kitchen are the dining room and living room.

105

CHAPTER 3

Noise Transmission Noise pollution within the home is caused by both interior (communal spaces) and exterior (city) sound creators. Loud is applied to spaces that experience an extreme amount of noise pollution from sound creators. Some noise refers to spaces with some noise pollution. Quiet relationships have no noise pollution. The survey tells us that noise stimulation is the least intimate of all of the senses, so noise pollution may affect private spaces just as often as public spaces. Noise stimulation may not influence privacy, but it can be used to inform spatial adjacencies. This noise generated in the communal space of the living room most affects the dining room, kitchen, and courtyard, and slightly affects the toilet room, bathroom, bedroom, entry, and guest/childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room. The city sounds infiltrate the entry and parking areas the most, and slightly infiltrate the patio/courtyard, balcony/terrace, kitchen, living room, and bedroom.

Bathroom

PR PR

Toilet Room

PR PR

Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace

Entry Storage

PR PR

PU PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PU PR PR PR PR PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR

PU PU

Patio/Courtyard

PU PU

PU PU PU

Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

PR = Identified in the survey as a private space PU = Identified in the survey as a public space fig 3.109 Noise Transmission Matrix Source: by author

106

According to the survey, hearing another person is the least intimate sensory interaction, so private areas may not have sound isolation.

Bedroom

Loud Some Noise Quiet

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

According to the survey, sight of another person, both obstructed and unobstructed, is not an intimate interaction, so private areas may have public sightlines.

Bedroom PR

Bathroom

PR PR

Toilet Room

PR PR

Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace

Storage

PU PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR PR PU PU PR PR PR PR PR PU PR PR PU PR PU PR

PU PU

Patio/Courtyard Entry

PR PR

PU PU

PU PU PU

Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

PR = Identified in the survey as a private space PU = Identified in the survey as a public space fig 3.110 Sightline Matrix Source: by author

Obstructed View Unobstructed View No View

Sightlines Sightlines are taken from both outside the home on the sidewalk, street, and any other path passing the home, and within the home in the common communal spaces. These are the spaces where non-occupants of the home are most likely to look within the home. An obstructed view is a sightline that has some sort of obstruction such as shutters, landscaping, or frosted glazing. An unobstructed sightline either has no barrier, or a clear glazed barrier. No view refers to spaces that share no visual connection to either of the sightline points. The survey tells us that sight is slightly more intimate than noise stimulation, but is not a very intimate sense, so sightlines may not inform us of whether a space is public or private. Sight may not influence privacy, but it can be used to inform spatial adjacencies. From the exterior, the public has a clear, unobstructed view of the entry, balcony/terrace, and parking, and an obstructed view of all other areas of the home. The living room provides unobstructed views of the dining room, kitchen, parking, patio/ courtyard, entry, and guest/childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room, and obstructed views of all other areas of the home, except for the storage area, which has no interior viewpoints.

107

CHAPTER 3

3.4 Site Research

Sensory relationship findings from the six analyzed Japanese case studies are implemented through the modification of a residence in Southern California to demonstrate how adjacencies, layouts, materiality, and transparency may be adapted for inhabitants of differing cultural identifications. Three homes located in Southern California are chosen as potential sites for modification. Single family urban residential structures are not as common in the United States as in Japan, but the same typology was chosen as a focus for modification in an attempt to maintain as few variables as possible between the Japanese and Southern California home locations, aside from the architecture of the home itself. The three homes in Southern California were chosen as potential sites for modification for several reasons. The adjacencies of neighboring buildings are extremely close, as in the Japanese case study homes. The homes in Japan have side setbacks of anywhere between 1-3 feet. The homes in Southern California have side yard setbacks of approximately 3 feet. Homes from both Japan and Southern California fall within approximately the same size range in relation to their respective countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s average home size. As of 2009 the average home size in Japan is 1023 square feet and the average home size in the United States is 2164 square feet (Wilson, 2009). The Japanese case study homes range in size from 700 square feet to 1859 square feet. The potential Southern California modification homes range in size from 1800 square feet to 2800 square feet. All 9 homes (6 in Japan, and 3 in Southern California) were designed to house approximately the same number of occupants. Southern California residences are analyzed in the same way as the Japanese case study homes. The five sense identified by Hall are applied in the same manner to these homes as to the Japanese homes to have a consistent level of comparison for modification and design. After analysis, the findings from the three Southern California homes are compared to identify the home that best represents all three potential sites in terms of sensory interactions between spaces.

108

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

fig 3.111 (opposite page - top) Harless Residence Street Frontage Adapted from Source: “Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence,” n.d. fig 3.112 (opposite page - middle) Palms Residence Street Frontage Adapted from Source: Kudler, 2012 fig 3.113 (opposite page - bottom) Webster Residence Street Frontage Adapted from Source: “Webster Residence,” n.d. fig 3.114 (top) Harless Residence Location Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 fig 3.115 (middle) Palms Residence Location Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 fig 3.116 (bottom) Webster Residence Location Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015

109

CHAPTER 3

HARLESS RESIDENCE Year: 2004 Location: Manhattan Beach, California, United States Architect: Dean Nota Architect Typology: Single Family, 3-Story, Detached Home Size: 2241 s.f. Surroundings: Residential The Harless Residence is located in a dense residential neighborhood with a narrow lot size of 30 feet by 52 feet. The north south oriented site has narrow side yard setbacks of 3 feet, creating close neighboring adjacencies (“10.12.030 - Property development regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts. | Code of Ordinances | Manhattan Beach, CA | Municode Library,” n.d.). A family of four occupies this 2241 square foot home in the community of Manhattan Beach, on the western edge of Los Angeles. The neighborhood is eclectic in its architectural styles, encompassing everything from small beach bungalows to large contemporary structures. A mix of architectural materials can be found in the area including stucco, wood, and masonry (“Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence,” n.d.). The materiality of the Harless Residence borrows from the eclectic nature of the surrounding neighborhood. The home has access to ocean breezes and slight ocean views from the top floor. The home is bounded, in close proximity, by homes on the east and west ends, a public city street on the north end, and an alleyway with garage accessibility on the south end. The main entry to the home is located off of the street on the north façade. Due to a slight elevation change on the lot, the home has been designed with all levels as split levels. Spaces on the north end of the home are at a slightly higher elevation than those on the south end of the home. Communal living spaces are provided on both the ground level and third level, with all private living spaces located on the second level. Rooms on both the ground and second levels are very enclosed both internally and externally, while the top level has a high degree of both internal and external transparency. Living is meant to be done on the top floor where slight views, ample light, and breeze can be accessed without interference from neighboring structures. The split level layout provides space separation even on the top level, which has an open plan. The home is an interesting exploration of contrasting levels of enclosure and openness.

110

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

fig 3.117 (opposite page - top) View from Living toward Dining Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 96 fig 3.118 (opposite page - middle) Rear Elevation Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 93 fig 3.119 (opposite page - bottom) Front Elevation Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 91 fig 3.120 Harless Residence Floor Plans Adapted from Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 92

Third Level

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Garage

Family Room

Bath

Ground Level

111

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection The spaces in this home are very separated from one another with the only major connections occurring on the top floor between the living room, dining room, and kitchen. The balcony on the north end of the home on the second level is stacked above the street facing patio on the front of the home, creating an open connection between the two spaces. Both the patio/courtyard and the balconies are open to the city. The floor plan diagrams on the opposite page highlight the physical barriers that exist between spaces. The spatial adjacency matrix on this page translates those physical diagrams into non-barricaded adjacencies. The matrix clearly shows how segregated each space in the home is. A much more open floor plan is needed to modify the Harless Residence to meet Japanese preferences.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Always Connected Sometimes Connected Never Connected

112

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Physical Barrier

Third Level

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Garage

Family Room

Bath

Ground Level

fig 3.121 (opposite page) Physical Connection Matrix Source: by author fig 3.122 Physical Barriers Source: by author

113

CHAPTER 3

Temperature Change The layout of the home shows that no purely interior spaces exist. All spaces have at least one wall that is shared with the exterior, including circulation spaces. This layout, along with window placements, creates a thermal connection between all spaces and the city. The patio and balcony on the north end of the home are unshaded, and fully open to the elements, so are prone to extreme temperature shifts. Internally, heat produced in the kitchen affects only the dining room. Heat created in the bathroom affects only the toilet room. Heat created in the living room, from the fire place slightly transfers into the dining room space. Storage is the only area not affected by temperature shifts.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Extreme Variable Mild

114

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Mild

Extreme

Third Level

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Garage

Family Room

Bath

Ground Level

fig 3.123 (opposite page) Temperature Change Matrix Source: by author fig 3.124 Temperature Extremes Source: by author

115

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission In this locale, the scents created exterior of the home include less traffic and more natural smells from the closely located ocean. Traffic must still be considered due to the location near a large city street, but breezes from the ocean may assist in dissipating these scents away from the home. Due to its ground level location on a street, the patio on the north end of the home contains the majority of the scents transmitted from the city to the home. Scent creators in this home exist on all three levels, but layout locations prevent over saturation of smells in most areas of the home. The ground level bathroom is located down a hallway, allowing smells to dissipate before reaching living areas. Scents created in the second level bathrooms are contained to their adjacent bedrooms. The lack of significant barrier between the toilet rooms and bathrooms allow easy scent transmission between these spaces. Kitchen smells on the third level travel throughout the level, and may slightly transmit to lower levels through the stairwell. Due to the shared space between the kitchen and dining area, the dining room serves as one of the largest receivers of scent within the home.

116

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Strong Smell Some Smell Weak Smell

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Weak Smell

Strong Smell

Third Level

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Garage

Family Room

Bath

Ground Level

fig 3.125 (opposite page) Scent Transmission Matrix Source: by author fig 3.126 Scent Diagram Source: by author

117

CHAPTER 3

Noise Transmission This home allows for more sound transmission throughout the interior than from the exterior into the interior. The city transmits sounds to the entry, the patio, the parking area, and the ground floor family room. The rarely penetrated facades prevent most sound from entering the second level. At the third level, the height is far enough removed from the street level for street noise to dissipate before infiltrating spaces. On the interior, the living room and the family room are considered the main sound centers as they are the gathering areas within the home. The openness of the third floor allows for a large amount of sound to travel into the dining room, and a slightly lower amount of noise to continue into the kitchen. The living spaces transmit variable amounts of noise to all areas of the home except areas on the second level, and the patio due to solid facades and level separations.

118

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Loud Some Noise Quiet

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Quiet

Loud

Third Level

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Garage

Family Room

Bath

Ground Level

fig 3.127 (opposite page) Noise Transmission Matrix Source: by author fig 3.128 Noise Diagram Source: by author

119

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines When sightlines are taken from the public exterior spaces and communal interior spaces, we can see the home is very visually connected. Most of these sightlines, however, are obstructed lines of sight. From the exterior public right of way, the only space fully visually accessible, with an unobstructed sightline is the patio. It sits just off of the public street and sidewalk with only a short wall as a barrier. Spaces on the third level of the home are the most private, which explains their visual disconnectedness from public view. On the interior, communal spaces allow more unobstructed views than from the exterior, but most sightlines are still obstructed or non-existent. The spaces on the second level continue to be the most private and secluded with no sightlines from communal spaces unobstructed interior views occur throughout the open top level of the home and between the entry and family room on the ground level.

fig 3.129 Sightline Matrix Source: by author fig 3.130 (opposite page - left) Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author fig 3.131 (opposite page - right) Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

120

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Obstructed View Unobstructed View No View

Dining Room

Third Level

Living Room

Dining Room

Third Level

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Garage

Entry

Family Room

Garage

Bath

Ground Level

Kitchen

Living Room

Kitchen

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Family Room

Bath

Ground Level

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

121

CHAPTER 3

PALMS RESIDENCE Year: 2008 Location: Venice, California, United States Architect: Marmol Radziner Typology: Single Family, 2-Story, Detached Home Size: 2800 s.f. Surroundings: Residential The Palms Residence is a prefabricated steel structure sitting on a narrow, east west oriented, urban lot. The structure was built using 14 prefabricated modules for a total of 2800 square feet of floor area. Prefabrication allowed the structure to be placed on site in a few hours (Mathewson, 2010). The dense residential neighborhood, along the coast in Los Angeles, California, has high traffic year-round due to the temperate climate and prime location. High traffic led the owners to ask for a home that looks inward and provides privacy. The architect achieved this in part by providing large wooden screens along the ground level. The site is long and narrow, and the home was designed to take full advantage of the small parcel. The main entry (fig 3.132) to the home is on the street, with the garage located along an alley at the back of the home. When first entering the home from the street, occupants and visitors are elevated slightly above ground level, by use of stairs, to a raised entry platform. A sliding wood screen door allows entry into an outdoor courtyard. Traveling through the courtyard, occupants enter the home through a glazed faรงade and are deposited into the living room, which shares space with a double height kitchen (fig 3.134) and dining room. Walking through, toward the back of the home, brings visitors to an enclosed washroom and laundry area. Past these spaces is an outdoor living area and a carport. The carport is blocked from view, but can be accessed by walking around the side of the home. The second level is accessed by stairs located adjacent to the kitchen. The enclosed stairs lead up to a bedroom level with three bedrooms, a master bath, a guest bath, an office, and an outdoor covered living terrace. All rooms on this level are enclosed, with a corridor as an adjoining feature. The guest bath is accessed from the corridor, creating an equally accessible space for both of the guest bedrooms. The master bath is accessible only from the master bedroom. Built in wooden cabinetry provides a common decorative thread throughout the home to tie spaces together and bring warmth to the white walls (Mathewson, 2010).

122

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Master Bath Master Bedroom

Bath Bedroom

Bedroom Office

Outodoor Living

Second Level

Kitchen

Laundry Washroom

Living Room

Entry

Carport Outdoor Living

Dining Room

Ground Level fig 3.132 (opposite page - top) Front Facade Source: “Palms Residence / Marmol Radziner Prefab,” 2011 fig 3.133 (opposite page - middle) View from Outdoor Living toward Dining Source: “Palms Residence / Marmol Radziner Prefab,” 2011 fig 3.134 (opposite page - bottom) Kitchen with Double Height Ceiling Source: “Palms Residence / Marmol Radziner Prefab,” 2011 fig 3.135 Palms Residence Floor Plans Adapted from Source: Mathewson, 2010, p. 266

123

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection The Palms Residences has many physical barriers, and few physical connections. None of the exterior spaces are bounded by walls, so they are physically connected to the public city space, but once inside the home connections disappear. The entry serves as a transition from the exterior to interior, with an open pathway, a transparent surrounding fence, and no roof covering. This space, although physically connected to the city, begins to enclose occupants and moves them into the interior. The interior physical connections show the importance of barriers and physical privacy within the home. The living room, dining room, and kitchen share a space as the toilet and bathrooms do, but physical connections exist nowhere else on the interior. This disconnect may be caused by the prefabricated nature of the home. It was built in structural modules, naturally creating separations where the modules end.

fig 3.136 Physical Connection Matrix Source: by author fig 3.137 (opposite page) Physical Barriers Source: by author

124

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Always Connected Sometimes Connected Never Connected

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Physical Barrier Master Bath Master Bedroom

Bath Bedroom

Bedroom Office

Outodoor Living

Second Level

Kitchen

Laundry Washroom

Living Room

Entry

Carport Outdoor Living

Dining Room

Ground Level

125

CHAPTER 3

Temperature Change Exterior temperature creators have a high effect on the home due to the facades play with transparencies through screens and glazing. This treatment allows for sunlight and temperature extremes at most spaces in this narrow home because most spaces contain at least one exterior wall. The placement of bathrooms, toilet rooms, and storage away from glazing makes them least susceptible to exterior temperature change. The interior thermal creators are insulated from other spaces in the home. The layout of the house allows for heat from the oven to transfer only to a small portion of the kitchen and dining room. The segregation of the bathroom from other spaces in the home contains temperature extremes originating in this area from infiltrating into other spaces.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Extreme Variable Mild

fig 3.138 Temperature Change Matrix Source: by author fig 3.139 (opposite page) Temperature Diagram Source: by author

126

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Mild Master Bath Master Bedroom

Bath Bedroom

Bedroom

Extreme

Office Outodoor Living

Second Level

Kitchen

Laundry Washroom

Living Room

Entry

Carport Outdoor Living

Dining Room

Ground Level

127

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission Spaces in this home are fairly insular, creating an environment immune to scent transfer. As with thermal transfer, the city scents affect only those spaces located exterior of the homeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s primary walls. The entry, patio, balcony, and parking areas all have physical connections to the exterior, creating a space with no scent insulation from city smells. The entry is physically separated from the interior of the home, but a door opening, and thin glazed facades, allow for a small amount of scent transfer from the kitchen to this outdoor space. The kitchen, dining room, and living room share a space allowing for scent transfer from the kitchen throughout. No partitions exist between toilet rooms and bathrooms, allowing extreme scent transfer between them.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Strong Smell Some Smell Weak Smell

fig 3.140 Scent Transmission Matrix Source: by author fig 3.141 (opposite page) Scent Diagram Source: by author

128

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Weak Smell Master Bath Master Bedroom

Bath Bedroom

Bedroom

Strong Smell

Office Outodoor Living

Second Level

Kitchen

Laundry Washroom

Living Room

Entry

Carport Outdoor Living

Dining Room

Ground Level

129

CHAPTER 3

Noise Transmission Since noise transfers not just through openings, but also through some walls, noise infiltration from the city is not limited to the exterior spaces of the home. Those spaces are most affected by city borne noise, but sounds are also able to travel through glazed and thinner facades to storage areas, and the living room and dining room. Although the living and dining rooms share a space with the kitchen, the location of the kitchen way from glazed walls creates a dissipation of noise before reaching the space. The concentration and separation of communal spaces toward the front of the house on the ground level provides an insulating effect for the rest of the home. Sound created in the living room creates potential for a loud space within the kitchen, living room, and dining room. A small amount of noise is able to transfer to storage areas and the entry from the living room due to door openings and thin glazed partitions.

fig 3.142 Noise Transmission Matrix Source: by author fig 3.143 (opposite page) Noise Diagram Source: by author

130

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Loud Some Noise Quiet

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Quiet Master Bath Master Bedroom

Bath Bedroom

Bedroom

Loud

Office Outodoor Living

Second Level

Kitchen

Laundry Washroom

Living Room

Entry

Carport Outdoor Living

Dining Room

Ground Level

131

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines The exterior facades of this home are characterized by glazing covered in wooden screens. This creates spaces visible from a majority of passersby. Although visually accessible, visual privacy is increased by the wood screening system. Most sightlines are obstructed, allowing passersby a glimpse of the interior without removing privacy for the residents. The bathroom and toilet rooms are the only spaces in the home which are not visible from the exterior. Obstructed views are provided of every other space, except for the parking area, which sits on the alley absent from any physical or visual barrier, allowing an unobstructed view. The interior spaces of the home are mostly visually inaccessible from one another. The communal living room provides views only to the areas it shares space with (the kitchen and dining room), the exterior patio and entry, and public street. Unlike views from the exterior in, most interior views are unobstructed.

fig 3.144 Sightline Matrix Source: by author fig 3.145 (opposite page - top) Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author fig 3.146 (opposite page - bottom) Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

132

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Obstructed View Unobstructed View No View

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Master Bath Master Bedroom

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

Bath Bedroom

Bedroom Office

Outodoor Living

Second Level

Kitchen

Laundry Washroom

Living Room

Entry

Carport Outdoor Living

Dining Room

Ground Level

Master Bath Master Bedroom

Bath Bedroom

Bedroom Office

Outodoor Living

Second Level

Kitchen

Laundry Washroom

Living Room

Entry

Carport Outdoor Living

Dining Room

Ground Level

133

CHAPTER 3

WEBSTER RESIDENCE Year: 2003 Location: Venice Beach, California, United States Architect: Ehrlich Architects Typology: Single Family, 3-Story, Detached Home Size: 1800 s.f. Surroundings: Residential The Webster Residence sits on a narrow, northwest southeast oriented, urban site. Glass, concrete and steel are incorporated as primary exterior materials. Wood is added on the interior for warmth. The dense residential neighborhood, along the coast in Los Angeles, California has high traffic year-round due to the temperate climate and prime location. The close adjacencies of neighboring buildings led toward the design of an inward looking home, based around a central core (Friedman, 2010, p. 86). The home is created by two structures, on either end of the long site, linked by a passageway along the edge of the site. Roll up glass doors create uninterrupted visual and physical access through the length of the home. The lower level contains three living areas, one in each end of the home, and one linking the two as an outdoor living area. The front of the home (fig 3.149) faces the main street, while the rear of the home houses the garage and sits on an alleyway. Visitors enter through a gated patio with a low concrete block wall. They are led through this patio to the front door (fig 3.148), and into the main living space, including a dining room and kitchen. Continuing through the home, occupants progress through the outdoor court and the circulation core, and into the rear living area. The rear living area is slightly elevated to allow space for the garage below. Occupants proceed upstairs, through the circulation core, to a private second level with a master bedroom, master bathroom, guest bedroom, and guest bathroom. All of the guest spaces are accessed only from the circulation core, while all master suite spaces are accessed only from the master bedroom. The master suite has terraces looking out toward the front entry and the outdoor court. The guest bedroom has a terrace facing toward the outdoor court only. A habitable roof provides ocean breezes and views of the surrounding neighborhood. The home incorporates polished concrete floors and light colored dĂŠcor to increase the perception of larger space (Friedman, 2010, p. 86).

134

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Master Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Storage

Bath

Second Level

fig 3.147 (opposite page - top) View from Rear Living toward Outdoor Court Source: “Webster Residence,” n.d. fig 3.148 (opposite page - middle) Front Door Source: “Webster Residence,” n.d. fig 3.149 (opposite page - bottom) Front Facade Source: “Webster Residence,” n.d. fig 3.150 Webster Residence Floor Plans Adapted from Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 88

Living/Dining/ Kitchen

Outdoor Court

Rear Living

Ground Level

Garage

Lower Level

135

CHAPTER 3

Physical Connection This extremely narrow lot dictates efficient space use. The program is split between three levels, each with varying degrees of privacy. Level separations between program lead to little physical connectedness between program areas. The exterior of the home is separated from most interior areas through large glass roll up doors. The only spaces connected to the exterior at all times are the entry, patio, and balconies. The interior of the home is physically connected on the ground level, but extremely disconnected on the second level and lower level. A large number of square feet in the home are dedicated to circulation, creating disconnection between program areas. The only areas within the home sharing a connection are the master bedroom and bathroom, and the ground level spaces including the living room, dining room, and kitchen.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Always Connected Sometimes Connected Never Connected

fig 3.151 Physical Connection Matrix Source: by author fig 3.152 (opposite page) Physical Barriers Source: by author

136

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Master Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Storage

Physical Barrier

Bath

Second Level

Living/Dining/ Kitchen

Outdoor Court

Rear Living

Ground Level

Garage

Lower Level

137

CHAPTER 3

Temperature Change The layout of the home separates the program into two distinct spaces, one on each side of the site, connected by a circulation core. This separation, along with the narrow site, creates a large distance between areas of the program, allowing for no internal temperature exchange. Exterior temperatures are easily transferred to all areas of the home through the large glazed facades. The kitchen is strategically located away from glazing to eliminate exterior temperature shifts. The entry, patio, and balconies are open to the sky, making them the spaces which are most susceptible to temperature extremes from exterior influences.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Extreme Variable Mild

fig 3.153 Temperature Change Matrix Source: by author fig 3.154 (opposite page) Temperature Diagram Source: by author

138

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Master Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Storage

Mild

Bath

Extreme

Second Level

Living/Dining/ Kitchen

Outdoor Court

Rear Living

Ground Level

Garage

Lower Level

139

CHAPTER 3

Scent Transmission The exterior walls on the ground level are perforated by large roll up doors, creating gaps for scents and sounds to enter the home. A majority of the home is affected by external scents. Storage areas, and the toilet rooms and bathrooms are the only spaces not susceptible to exterior scents. On the interior, space separation continues to affect sensory transfer. The bathroom and toilet room are not partitioned from one another creating high scent transmission. The toilet rooms located on both levels, on both ends of the house, are placed in close proximity to living spaces, creating high scent transfer between the toilet rooms, living rooms and bedrooms. Scents from the kitchen transfer only to the immediately adjacent spaces including the entry, living room, and dining room.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Strong Smell Some Smell Weak Smell

fig 3.155 Scent Transmission Matrix Source: by author fig 3.156 (opposite page) Scent Diagram Source: by author

140

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Master Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Storage

Weak Smell

Bath

Strong Smell

Second Level

Living/Dining/ Kitchen

Outdoor Court

Rear Living

Ground Level

Garage

Lower Level

141

CHAPTER 3

Noise Transmission The glazed facades allow large amounts of sound transmission to occur between the exterior and interior of the home. The toilet room and storage areas are the only spaces within the home that have no exterior sound transmission. The interior of the home is very aurally open on the ground floor, where the living spaces are located, because there is one on each end of the home. Some sound travels from the open courtyard/patio up through the glazing on the second level. The living room and dining room share an interior space, creating a portion of the program where a large amount of sound transmission occurs.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Loud Some Noise Quiet

fig 3.157 Noise Transmission Matrix Source: by author fig 3.158 (opposite page) Noise Diagram Source: by author

142

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Master Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Storage

Quiet

Bath

Loud

Second Level

Living/Dining/ Kitchen

Outdoor Court

Rear Living

Ground Level

Garage

Lower Level

143

CHAPTER 3

Sightlines The home is visually open to many sightlines both on the interior and exterior due to glazing. Exterior sightlines are taken from the public right of way and allow passersby to see through the entire ground level and a large portion of the upper level. Sightlines from the front and back living rooms provide the same ground level sightlines as the public right of way and additional sightlines into the second level through the patio/courtyard. Most sightlines, originating from both the interior and exterior, are unobstructed, creating spaces with little visual privacy.

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest/Childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Room City

Obstructed View Unobstructed View No View

fig 3.159 Sightline Matrix Source: by author fig 3.160 (opposite page - left) Exterior Line of Sight Source: by author fig 3.161 (opposite page - right) Interior Line of Sight Source: by author

144

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Master Bedroom

Bath

Master Bedroom

Bedroom

Storage

Bath

Second Level

Living/Dining/ Kitchen

Outdoor Court

Rear Living

Ground Level

Living/Dining/ Kitchen

Outdoor Court

Rear Living

Ground Level

Garage

Lower Level

Bedroom

Storage

Bath

Second Level

Bath

Garage

Lower Level

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

145

CHAPTER 3

3.5 Site Selection

After analyzing all potential sites, the results are compared across each sense to find an overall middle ground. Physical connection is similar, but not identical, between all sites. Each site has a similar number of connections in similar program areas throughout the homes. None of the sites serve as an extreme, or a middle ground. Temperature change shows variances in the case studies. The Webster Residence only shows thermal transmission from the exterior in, with no thermal transmission occurring on the interior of the home. Almost half of the spaces affected by exterior temperatures are prone to extreme temperature shifts. The Palms Residence has no areas prone to extreme temperatures, but shows some thermal transmission within the home. The Harless Residences serves as a middle ground with two spaces prone to extreme exterior temperature shifts, while showing mild temperature changes within the home. A scent transmission analysis shows many differences between the potential sites. Transmission of exterior scents to the interior are prevalent in the Webster Residence, but less so in both the Palms and Harless Residences. The Harless Residence has one interior space highly affected by exterior scent transmission, serving the overall middle ground for exterior to interior scent transfer. Scent transmission within the interior of the home occurs in approximately the same number of spaces in the Webster and Harless Residences, with fewer transfers internally in the Palms Residence. Based on this comparison, the Harless Residence serves as a synthesis of the three homes. The Webster residence has, by far, the most noise transmission between spaces both internally and externally. The Palms Residence has slightly less noise transmission than the Harless Residence overall. Even though the Palms Residence has more external to internal transmission, the Harless Residence has more internally transmitted noise. The Palms Residence or Harless Residence could be viewed as the acceptable synthesis for noise transfer. Visually it is apparent that the Webster Residence has a low degree of visual privacy both internally and externally with few unobstructed views, and available sightlines to most areas in the home. The Palms Residence is the least visually accessible with most public views into the home obstructed, and very few internal sightlines. The Harless Residences provides a large number of sightlines both internally and externally, but most are obstructed, providing a higher degree of visual privacy, while providing visual access. In terms of sightlines, the visual accessibility of the Harless Residence sits between the extremes shown by the Palms and Webster Residences.

fig 3.162 (opposite page) Potential Site Matrixes Source: by author

146

In the analysis and comparison of physical connection, temperature change, scent transmission, noise transmission, and sightlines, the Harless Residence represents a neutral synthesis of the three potential sites, and will be modified to attempt to meet the preferences found in Japanese case studies.

Sightlines

Noise Transmission

Scent Transmission

Temperature Change

Physical Connection

DESIGN RESEARCH + ANALYSIS

Harless Residence

Palms Residence

Webster Residence

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

City

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

City

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

City

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

City

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

City

147

CHAPTER 4

design process

CHAPTER 4

Results of case study analyses are represented through string diagrams (fig 4.1), with each string representing a sensory connection between spaces. The border of the diagram provides the room names contained on the sensory matrices shown in Chapter 3. Each color of string represents one of the five senses investigated throughout the study. Red identifies physical connection, light green identifies temperature change, blue identifies scent transmission, light brown identifies noise transmission, and dark green identifies sightlines. Sensory connections between spaces are shown by a length of string traveling from one room title to another, creating a web of sensory interactions. The main purpose of creating these diagrams is to show the stark contrast in sensory density found between cultures. The goal of the Harless residence modification is to adjust the layout of the home in order to develop a diagram of sensory transmission that is representative of the Japanese case study findings. The Harless Residence is investigated further through a sectional model, of the existing home, using string as an investigative means of showing how sensory transmission currently occurs through this sectional cut (fig 4.2).

fig 4.1 (top) String Diagrams from left to right; Japanese Southern California; Harless Residence Source: by author fig 4.2 (bottom) Sectional String Diagram of Harless Residence Source: by author

150

DESIGN PROCESS

Existing floor plans and sections of the Harless Residence (fig 4.6 and fig 4.7) show current adjacencies, barriers and transitions, and disconnection that exists. The ground level family room is meant to be utilized as a living space, but has no connection to the rest of the home, the stairwell serves as the only connection between levels, and the bedroom acts a secluded retreat. Additional information regarding existing conditions, and existing sensory adjacencies, can be found in Chapter 3.

4.1 Existing Conditions

fig 4.3 (top left) Existing Ground Level Family Room Source: “Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence,” n.d. fig 4.4 (top right) Existing Stairwell between the Second and Third Levels Source: “Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence,” n.d. fig 4.5 (bottom) Existing Master Bedroom Source: Hamilton, 2013

151

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

CHAPTER 4

Third Level

Bedroom Master Bedroom Bath

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level 2

Entry

Garage 3

fig 4.6 Existing Floor Plans Source: adapted from Friedman, 2010, p. 92

152

Ground Level

Family Room Bath

DESIGN PROCESS

fig 4.7 Existing Sections Source: adapted from Friedman, 2010, p. 92

153

CHAPTER 4

4.2 Proposed Modifications

A common characteristic of all but one of the Japanese case studies, not found in the Southern California case studies, is a protected garden area (shown in green in fig 4.8). It varies between interior and exterior locations, but it is always adjacent to, and visible from, multiple areas of the home. The one home that does not have this area (the Tower House) has a glazed facade adjacent to a mature street tree, creating the same visual connection to nature. In the Japanese home, this garden area is used for visual enjoyment, ventilation, and daylighting, but not primarily for living. The garden areas found in the Southern California homes serve as extensions of the living space. Understanding this as a trend, it serves as the starting point for adjustments to the layout of the Harless Residence. Two potential locations for a garden area/lightwell exist within the current structure of the Harless Residence. The first location is the existing stairwell, serving the dual purpose of circulation and garden space (fig 4.9), similar to the situation that occurs in the Machi House case study investigated in Chapter 3. This addition creates small changes throughout the home, but is minimally invasive. The second location calls for more invasive modifications with the addition of a garden area near the center of the home where storage space and a hallway to the ground floor restroom is currently located (fig 4.10). This garden area extends through to the roof as a light well, creating adjacency and layout adjustments throughout all three levels. Since the stairwell location is in a pre-existing shaft in the home, few new adjacencies are created with the addition of a garden in the stairwell. The higher possibility for sensory manipulations with the central garden proposal (fig 4.10) leads to further development of the central location near the ground floor restroom.

fig 4.8 Garden Areas in Japanese Case Studies Source: by author

154

DESIGN PROCESS

Both proposals open the layout of the ground floor to create a dual entry from the alley and the street to better disperse the benefits of the new garden area and to develop a smoother transition from public to private. The Japanese case studies show that the parking area serves as a transition to the entry of the home. Due to regulations in Manhattan Beach, the location of the Harless Residence, parking is located at the rear end of the home off of an alleyway, and the entry is located at the front of the home, off of a public street. A new dual entry, the existing entry from the street and a new entry from the alley may assist in remedying this discontinuity.

fig 4.9 (top) Proposal 1 Garden Location on Ground Floor Source: by author fig 4.10 (bottom) Proposal 2 Garden Location on Ground Floor Source: by author

155

CHAPTER 4

Living Room

Kitchen

placeholder for rendered views

Dining Room

Third Level

Bedroom Master Bedroom Bath

Bedroom

Bath

Second Level 2 fig 4.11 (top left) Modified View from Living Toward Dining Source: by author

Entry

fig 4.12 (middle left) Modified View from Stair Toward Guest Bed Source: by author fig 4.13 (bottom left) Modified View from Carport Entry Toward Front Entry Source: by author fig 4.14 (right) Modified Floor Plans Overlaid on Existing Floor Plans Source: by author

156

Carport 3

Ground Level

Garden Bath

Office/ Granny Flat

DESIGN PROCESS

An overlay of the proposed plans and sections on top of the existing plans and sections (fig 4.14 and fig 4.15) show the modifications made to adjust sensory transmissions. Key viewpoints (fig 4.11, fig 4.12 and fig 4.13) highlight important changes in sightlines, which assist in sensory transfer. Each modification is tailored to the manipulation of scent transfer from one space to another. Each scent is assigned a symbol to easily identify which modifications manipulate each sense (fig 3.6). Fig 4.16 shows a synopsis of all modifications made and their effect on sensory transmission. During the process of making modifications, sensory transmission diagrams are created to test the success of each modification in aligning Japanese findings in the Southern California home. Diagrams of the final modification (fig 4.17, fig 4.18, fig 4.19, fig 4.20, fig 4.21 and fig 4.22) show sensory transmissions after modifications are made. These findings are diagrammed in sensory transmission matrices (fig 4.23, fig 4.24, fig 4.25, fig 4.26 and fig 4.27) to identify sensory changes and more easily understand if changes have aligned the Japanese and Southern California homes.

fig 4.15 Modified Sections Overlaid on Existing Sections Source: by author

157

CHAPTER 4

fig 4.16 Modifications Identifying Sensory Stimulation Changes Source: by author Removal of garage door creates carport parking to double as additional entry way and increase external sensory access.

Operable windows around lightwell/interior garden provide ventilation to upper levels.

Walls around lightwell opening maintain privacy and the structural integrity of the home.

Removal of doors and the shared wall between guest bedrooms creates a flexible space with exterior views while maintaining sleeping privacy with sleeping nooks.

Handrail around the lightwell opening increases visual, lighting, and ventilation access to other areas of the home. Operable skylight provides increased venitlation and daylight.

A continuous walkway through the ground level of the home without barriers provides ventilation and visual access throughout the ground level.

158

DESIGN PROCESS

A handrail instead of walls around the balcony increases exterior sightlines.

Operable windows between the ground level living space and the lightwell/interior garden provide visual access to nature, while an offset to adjacent garage wall maintains privacy.

Opening between lightwell and master bath provides ventilation and daylight.

Additional window in the kitchen increases exterior sightlines and daylight access.

Lightwell increases sightlines, airflow, and daylight dispursal between levels.

Bathroom on upper level provides convenience.

Ground level interior garden provides access to nature.

159

CHAPTER 4

Physical Connection

Kitchen

Physical Barrier Living Room

Dining Room Bath

Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Bath Bath Bedroom

Entry Carport

Garden

Office

Bath

Living Room

Kitchen

Temperature Change

Mild

Dining Room Bath

Extreme Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Bath Bath Bedroom

Entry Carport

Garden

Office

Bath

Living Room

Kitchen

Scent Transmission

Weak Smell

Dining Room Bath

Strong Smell fig 4.17 (top) Modified Physical Barriers Source: by author

Bath Bath Bedroom

fig 4.18 (middle) Modified Temperature Change Diagram Source: by author fig 4.19 (bottom) Modified Scent Transmission Diagram Source: by author

160

Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Entry Carport

Garden Bath

Office

DESIGN PROCESS

Living Room

Kitchen

Quiet

Noise Transmission

Dining Room Bath

Loud Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Bath Bath Bedroom

Entry Carport

Garden

Office

Living Room

Exterior Sightlines

Dining Room Bath

Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Bath Bath Bedroom

Entry Carport

Garden

Office

Bath

Living Room

Kitchen

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

Kitchen

Bath

Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Bath Bath Bedroom

Entry Carport

Interior Sightlines

Dining Room

Garden Bath

Office

fig 4.20 (top) Modified Noise Transmission Diagram Source: by author fig 4.21 (middle) Modified Exterior Sightlines Source: by author fig 4.22 (bottom) Modified Interior Sightlines Source: by author

161

CHAPTER 4

Physical Connection The existing Harless Residence shows little physical connection between spaces. After modifications, additional connections are made to align interactions more closely with Japanese findings. Some connections cannot be made due to the structure of the home and the restrictions on the ground level of the home. Many connections exist between ground level spaces and the exterior in the Japanese case studies. FAR and parking requirements in Manhattan Beach create a footprint that is too small to allow for additional program on the ground level, making these connections difficult to achieve.

Bedroom

Harless Residence

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City Bedroom

Japanese Case Studies

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City Bedroom

Modified Residence

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage fig 4.23 Physical Connections Matrices Source: by author

162

Guest Room City

Always Connected Sometimes Connected Never Connected

DESIGN PROCESS

Harless Residence

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen

Temperature Change Temperature changes found in the Japanese and Southern California case studies are similar. Efforts are made during modifications to maintain this similarity.

Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City

Japanese Case Studies

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City

Modified Residence

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage

Extreme Variable Mild

Guest Room City

fig 4.24 Temperature Change Matrices Source: by author

163

CHAPTER 4

Scent Transmission The Japanese case studies are found to be more connected to exterior scents than the Southern California case studies. Additional exterior sensory connections are created through the introduction of the interior lightwell and the opening of the ground floor. A toilet is added to the top floor to introduce additional scents to these spaces.

Bedroom

Harless Residence

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City Bedroom

Japanese Case Studies

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City Bedroom

Modified Residence

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage fig 4.25 Scent Transmission Matrices Source: by author

164

Guest Room City

Strong Smell Some Smell Weak Smell

DESIGN PROCESS

Harless Residence

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen

Noise Transmission Noise transmission becomes more aligned through the introduction of a bathroom to the third level and noise travel through the new interior lightwell and open ground level.

Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City

Japanese Case Studies

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City

Modified Residence

Bedroom Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage

Loud Some Noise Quiet

Guest Room City

fig 4.26 Noise Transmission Matrices Source: by author

165

CHAPTER 4

Sightlines Due to the ground level restrictions in the Southern California home and the separation of the program though levels, some sightlines are not possible. The new lightwell creates additional connections and sightlines.

Bedroom

Harless Residence

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City Bedroom

Japanese Case Studies

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage Guest Room City Bedroom

Modified Residence

Bathroom Toilet Room Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Parking Balcony/Terrace Patio/Courtyard Entry Storage fig 4.27 Sightline Matrices Source: by author

166

Guest Room City

Obstructed View Unobstructed View No View

DESIGN PROCESS

Harless Residence

When layered on top of one another, in the string diagrams, sensory connection densities show a large change between the existing Harless Residence and the modified residence, and a closer density alignment between the Japanese case studies and the modified residence.

Japanese Case Studies

Modified Residence

fig 4.28 String Diagrams Source: by author

167

CHAPTER 5

conclusions

CHAPTER 5

Cities are becoming increasingly diverse, and growing numbers of architects are practicing internationally. These trends are leading designers to create spaces in places with cultural preferences they may not have adequate knowledge of, contributing to homogenized design. This study aims to develop a tool for culturally sensitive design, with a focus on urban residential spaces. The thesis began as a preference study, utilizing previous research by an anthropologist, Edward T. Hall, and a psychologist, Robert Sommer, to understand the importance of adequate space allocation and how this preferred allocation differs based on culture. Hallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s study was a focus through the entirety of this thesis. The concept of development aimed to translate Hallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s definition of sensory transmission as a determiner in personal space to sensory transmission as a determiner in architectural space. The study focuses on investigating sensory interactions in residential case studies to identify trends existing throughout case studies of a specific culture. A survey was distributed to understand perceived space use and preferences. The purpose of the survey is to verify or contradict case study findings, providing insight into the correlation between observed preferences and stated, or perceived, preferences, and to understand residential activity systems and how specific spaces within the home are utilized. Many factors, not included in this study, contribute to spatial preferences. Cultural identification is just one aspect of preference formation, and sensory acceptance is one of many parts of cultural identification. The impact of preference was narrowed down to only sensory interaction for the purposes of this study and the development of this tool. Acknowledging the far reaching impacts of spatial preference; the method developed in this study is intended to be one of many tools utilized in a culturally sensitive, and effective, design solution. A large and continuing limitation of this study is access to data and information. Limited survey responses and limited specific information regarding residential case studies has potentially resulted in incomplete findings. Due to limited case study information, some assumptions were made when mapping sensory transmission through spaces. In many cases, materiality, surrounding neighborhood, and space use information was available only through photos. The inability to visit the Japanese case studies led to additional assumptions about how senses move through the spaces of the case study homes. Without experiencing this transmission first hand, some transmission findings may be generalized. Access to survey participants identifying as Japanese was severely limited. Even with the assistance of local Japanese business and social groups, finding large numbers of survey respondents proved difficult. With this unforeseen hurdle in mind, additional research of cultures highly represented locally at the start of this study may have changed the chosen culture of focus to increase potential access to interviews, survey respondents, and experts. 170

CONCLUSIONS

Although findings between cultures produced differences, a larger difference was expected. The initial assertion that cultural identity influences space preference and that this cultural identity persists through environmental and location changes may be too generalized and may serve as the basis for the smaller than expected differences in survey responses. As seen in other studies, cultural exposure adjusts our unique identity. Many of the survey respondents identifying as Japanese have lived in the United States for many years, providing them with ample exposure to American culture, potentially changing preferences. When applying this tool to the modification of an existing home in Southern California, local codes provided difficulty in the translation of spatial adjacencies. Some relationships proved impossible, given the basic structure of the existing home. Modifications brought sensory relationships closer to case study findings, but a full alignment may only be possible through new construction. The closer alignment created does suggest that this study has merit and can serve as a building block for future study of culturally sensitive design tools. This study provides the ideal base for future exploration and experimentation. Culturally sensitive design is not only necessary in residential situations. As cities become denser and demographics grow increasingly diverse, we are going to be in a position of necessity; the necessity to create shared spaces, and small spaces, for occupants of varying cultures. Future development of culturally sensitive design tools will assist in creating these spaces to be healthy and comfortable. The hope is that this method of design will be further developed to create a formula for designing any type of space in any cultural situation. Differences in cultural preference exist. If we can pinpoint the main factors where these differences are most prevalent then we can focus our efforts on tailoring design creations to serve those dissimilarities.

171

10.12.030 - Property development regulations: RS, RM, and RH districts. | Code of Ordinances | Manhattan Beach, CA | Municode Library. (n.d.). Retrieved March 11, 2015, from https://www.municode.com/library/ca/manhattan_beach/codes/code_of_ ordinances?nodeId=TIT10PLZO_PTIISEDIRE_CH10.12REDI_10.12.030PRDERERSRMR HDI Aliasis. (2013, September 28). Cultural Differences Between the USA and Japan. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from http://aliasis.hubpages.com/hub/Cultural-Differences-Between-the-USand-Japan Azuma House - Tadao Ando - Great Buildings Architecture. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2014, from http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Azuma_House.html Azuma, T. (2012). Project: Tower House. A precursor of Miniature Houses in Tokyo. Archplus, (208), 46–51. Bansal, B. (2012, December 26). Azuma-tei (aka Tower House). Retrieved from http://benbansal. me/?p=379 Bognar, B. (2005). House of Plastic. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www. architectureweek.com/2005/0914/design_1-2.html Bow-Wow, A., Fujimori, T., Menruro, W., Nango, Y., & Walker, E. (2010). The Architectures of Atelier Bow-Wow: Behaviorology. New York: Rizzoli. Daniels, I. (2008). JAPANESE HOMES INSIDE OUT. Home Cultures, 5(2), 115–139. http://doi. org/10.2752/174063108X333155 Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www. california-architects.com/en/deannota/projects-3/harless_residence-4626 Fukuyama Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2007, April 1). FUKUYAMA NOW Fukuyama City Overview. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://www.fukuyama.or.jp/e/gaiyou.html Fukuyama City Tourism Association. (2002). Fukuyama Tourist Information - A Modern City, Rich in Nostalgia. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://www.fukuyama-kanko.com/english/ Fumarola, C. (2009). Tokyo_Tower House Azuma_Old Photos [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www. flickr.com/photos/carlofumarola1978/5050769277/ Futagawa, Y. (2007, August). Emergence of Tadao Ando: Interview with Kengo Kuma. GA Houses, Japan VI(100), 116–121. Goh, J. O., Chee, M. W., Tan, J. C., Venkatraman, V., Hebrank, A., Leshikar, E. D., … Park, D. C. (2007). Age and culture modulate object processing and object-scene binding in the ventral visual area. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(1), 44–52. Google Maps. (2015a). Retrieved February 9, 2015, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Meguro,+Tokyo,+Japan/@35.6323609,139.6896726,13885m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x 6018f4cc9e2835f1:0x28078d19a4b01873 Google Maps. (2015b). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/ 34%C2%B036’38.0%22N+135%C2%B029’32.0%22E/@34.6103626,135.4921311,219m/data=! 3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

Google Maps. (2015c). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Japan,+%E3%80%92150-0001+T%C5%8Dky%C5%8D-to,+Shibuya-ku,+Jing%C5%ABmae,+ 3+Chome%E2%88%926+%E5%8E%9F%E5%AE%BF%E4%BA%8C%E4%B8%81%E7%9 B%AE%E4%BC%9A%E9%A4%A8/@35.6710423,139.7132366,217m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m 1!1s0x60188c98bbf0176f:0x9164c18b0fbcab12 Google Maps. (2015d). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/ Yotsuya,+Shinjuku,+Tokyo+160-0004,+Japan/@35.68911,139.7164336,19z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0 x60188c8d46be1f69:0x2d281dbe9818c6db Google Maps. (2015e). Retrieved January 21, 2015, from https://www.google.com/ maps/@34.48843,133.360804,17z/data=!5m1!1e1 Google Maps. (n.d.-a). Retrieved March 3, 2015, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pal oma+Ct,+Venice,+CA+90291/@33.9940095,-118.4772785,937m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1! 1s0x80c2bac929623b5b:0x6d096414d5dc1900 Google Maps. (n.d.-b). Retrieved March 3, 2015, from https://www.google.com/maps/ place/734+Palms+Blvd,+Venice,+CA+90291/@33.992829,-118.461618,937m/data=!3m2!1e3!4 b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c2ba954a99cae5:0xe97ea31bbbafa11f Google Maps. (n.d.-c). Retrieved March 3, 2015, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/460 +28th+St,+Manhattan+Beach,+CA+90266/@33.895958,-118.412896,936m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m 2!3m1!1s0x80c2b3e6e69d7ab1:0xbbb821fdfc375413 Hall, E. T. (1969). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor. Harada, M., Mao, Ishi, N., & Kazuyoshi, N. (n.d.). Mount Fuji Architects Studio. Retrieved February 5, 2015, from http://www14.plala.or.jp/mfas/mfas.htm

Hsu, J. (2011, January 19). Row House (Azuma House) 住吉の長屋 by Tadao Ando 安藤忠雄. Retrieved from http://www.ananasamiami.com/2011/01/row-house-azuma-house-by-tadaoando.html Ikebe, K. (2007, August). Ishizu House. GA Houses, Japan VI(100), 68–73. Ishizu, S. (2013, March 12). The Ishizu does going through Sachi “has been handed down to live with the change of lifestyle Japan version of Case Study Houses.” Retrieved January 29, 2015, from http://www.ideelifecycling.com/?url=interviews/detail/42 Jodidio, P., & Ando, T. (2013). Tadao Ando: Houses. New York: Rizzoli. Kent, S. (1993). Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge University Press. Khamsi, R. (2007, May 4). Can culture dictate the way we see? - life - 04 May 2007 - New Scientist. Retrieved October 23, 2014, from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11785-canculture-dictate-the-way-we-see.html#.VEiFpfnF-Ng Kudler, A. G. (2012, June 28). Touring Marmol Radziner Prefab’s Palms Residence in Venice. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/touring_marmol_ radziner_prefabs_palms_residence_in_venice.php Kuma, K. (2007, August). Plastic House. GA Houses, Japan VI(100), 212.

REFERENCES

House in Tokyo. (2002, December). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.detail-online. com/inspiration/house-in-tokyo-106394.html

REFERENCES

Lei, L. (2012, October 26). Machi House | Leibal. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http:// leibal.com/interiors/residential/machi-house/ Machi-House / UID Architects. (2012, October 29). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http:// www.archdaily.com/285165/machi-house-uid-architects/ Maisto, P. (2009, September 4). Kengo Kuma & Associates — Plastic House. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://divisare.com/projects/105499-Kengo-Kuma-Associates-Plastic-House Mathewson, C. C. M. (2010). A5: LOS ANGELES: Architecture, Interiors, Lifestyle (1 edition). Pt. Reyes Station, CA?; Berkeley, CA: ORO Editions. Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and the Physical Environment. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 17(2), 113–119. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679280.2006.01673.x Morris, M. (2006). Kyo-Machiya: Tracing the Development of the Traditional Town Houses of Kyoto Through the Medieval Centuries. Vernacular Architecture, 37(1), 1–23. http://doi. org/10.1179/174962906X158219 Nuijsink, C. (2012). How to Make a Japanese House. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Palms Residence / Marmol Radziner Prefab. (2011, June 16). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.archdaily.com/144404/palms-residence-marmol-radziner-prefab/ Plastic House. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://kkaa.co.jp/works/architecture/ plastic-house/ preservation strategy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.east-asia-architecture. org/ieaau3/hozon-strategy.html Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio. (2010, February 3). Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.archdaily.com/48381/rainy-sunny-mount-fuji-architects-studio/ Rapoport, A. (1993). Systems of activities and systems of settings. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study (pp. 9–20). Cambridge University Press. Sanders, D. (1993). Behavioral conventions and archaeology: methods for the analysis of ancient architecture. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study (pp. 43–72). Cambridge University Press. Shibuya City Office. (2008). Shibuya City Office. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://www. city.shibuya.tokyo.jp/eng/index.html Shinjuku City Official Website. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://www.city. shinjuku.lg.jp/foreign/english/ Skudraite, I. (2012, December 10). Tower House or architect’s home in Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved from http://archwanders.com/2012/10/12/tower-house-house-or-architects-homein-shibuya-tokyo-japan/ Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Trade. Sumiyoshi ward. (2012). Retrieved February 13, 2015, from http://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/ contents/wdu020/sumiyoshi/english/ Tokyo Metropolitan Government. (2014). Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/index.htm

174

REFERENCES

Tokyowing. (2010, August 16). Tower House by Azuma Takamitsu. Retrieved from https:// tokyowing.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/azuma-house/ UID. (2011). Retrieved January 29, 2015, from http://www.maeda-inc.jp/uid/eng_index.html United Nations, D. of E. and S. A., Population Division. (2013). World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Key Findings andÂ Advance Tables (No. ESA/P/WP.227). Retrieved from http:// www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/news/2013/KEY%20FINDINGS%20 WPP2012_FINAL-2.pdf Webster Residence. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.houzz.com/ projects/101673 Wignall, D. (2012, November 1). Ten Things to Consider When Building a Global Practice. Retrieved October 27, 2014, from http://www.di.net/articles/ten-things-to-consider-whenbuilding-a-global-practice/ Wilson, L. (2009). How big is a house? Average house size by country. Retrieved from http:// shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house World Values Survey Association. (2014). WVS Database. Retrieved November 19, 2014, from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp Yng, av L. (n.d.). Tower House. Retrieved from http://www.tokyo.parallellt.se/2010/11/towerhouse.html Zeiler, T. W. (2002). Globalization. Retrieved November 19, 2014, from http://www. encyclopedia.com/topic/Globalization.aspx

175

fig 1.1 fig 1.2 fig 1.3 fig 2.1 fig 2.2 fig 2.3 fig 3.1 fig 3.2 fig 3.3 fig 3.4 fig 3.5 fig 3.6 fig 3.7 fig 3.8 fig 3.9 fig 3.10 fig 3.11 fig 3.12 fig 3.13 fig 3.14 fig 3.15 fig 3.16 fig 3.17 fig 3.18 fig 3.19 fig 3.20 fig 3.21 fig 3.22 fig 3.23 fig 3.24 fig 3.25 fig 3.26 fig 3.27 fig 3.28 fig 3.29 fig 3.30 fig 3.31 fig 3.32

Hall’s Four Personal Space Distances............................................................................... Triangular Approach to Research.................................................................................... Scope of Study................................................................................................................... Senses which determine proxemic distances................................................................... Variables contributing to cultural identity with spatial outcomes................................... Examples of the pictures of American and Japanese environments used in the Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda study Source: Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006, p. 116 Survey Responses Regarding Household Size............................................................. Survey Responses Regarding Cooking & Eating Habits................................................. Survey Responses Regarding Interactions Between Occupants and the General Public Survey Responses Regarding Noise and Hearing Preferences....................................... Traditional Machiya.......................................................................................................... Source: “preservation strategy,” n.d. Sensory Transmission Translation.................................................................................. Tokyo Location................................................................................................................. Ishizu House Neighborhood........................................................................................... Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 Ishizu House North Facade.............................................................................................. Source: Ishizu, 2013 Ishizu House Original North Facade............................................................................... Source: Ishizu, 2013 Ishizu House Entry........................................................................................................... Source: Ishizu, 2013 Ishizu House Front Door............................................................................................... Source: Ishizu, 2013 Ishizu House View from Children’s Room to Living Room..................................... Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 71 Ishizu House View to Children’s Room....................................................................... Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 72 Ishizu House Stair to Living Room............................................................................... Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 71 Ishizu House Living Room............................................................................................ Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 73 Ishizu House Living Room from Second Level............................................................... Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 69 Ishizu House Bedroom.................................................................................................... Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 71 Ishizu House Drawings.................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Ikebe, 2007, p. 73 Ishizu House Physical Barriers......................................................................................... Ishizu House Temperature Diagram............................................................................... Ishizu House Scent Diagram............................................................................................ Ishizu House Noise Diagram........................................................................................... Ishizu House Exterior Line of Sight................................................................................. Ishizu House Interior Line of Sight.................................................................................. Tokyo Location................................................................................................................. Tower House Location..................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: “Google Maps” 2015 Tower House Front Streetscape....................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Tokyowing, 2010 Tower House Rear Streetscape......................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Tokyowing, 2010 Tower House Entry Canopy............................................................................................. Source: Tokyowing, 2010 Tower House Corner Condition...................................................................................... Source: Tokyowing, 2010 Tower House Rear Facade................................................................................................ Source: Tokyowing, 2010

16 17 19 22 23 29 35 35 36 37 39 41 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 53 53 53 54 54 54 54

fig 3.33 fig 3.34 fig 3.35 fig 3.36 fig 3.37 fig 3.38 fig 3.39 fig 3.40 fig 3.41 fig 3.42 fig 3.43 fig 3.44 fig 3.45 fig 3.46

fig 3.48 fig 3.49 fig 3.50 fig 3.51 fig 3.52 fig 3.53 fig 3.54 fig 3.55 fig 3.56 fig 3.57 fig 3.58 fig 3.59 fig 3.60 fig 3.61 fig 3.62 fig 3.63 fig 3.64 fig 3.65 fig 3.66 fig 3.67 fig 3.68 fig 3.69 fig 3.70 fig 3.71

54 54 52 56 56 58 59 60 61 63 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 64 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 74 74 76 77 78 79

LIST OF FIGURES

fig 3.47

Tower House Living/Kitchen Area.............................................................................. Source: Fumarola, 2009 Tower House Living/Kitchen Area.............................................................................. Source: Fumarola, 2009 Tower House Drawings.................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Azuma, 2012 Tower House Physical Barriers......................................................................................... Tower House Temperature Diagram.............................................................................. Tower House Scent Diagram........................................................................................... Tower House Noise Diagram........................................................................................... Tower House Exterior Line of Sight................................................................................. Tower House Interior Line of Sight.................................................................................. Osaka Location................................................................................................................. Azuma House Location................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 Azuma House Streetscape............................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Hsu, 2011 Azuma House West (front) Facade................................................................................... Source: Hsu, 2011 Azuma House Surrounding Adjacencies........................................................................ Adapted from Source: Hsu, 2011 Azuma House Bedroom.................................................................................................. Source: Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 30 Azuma House Kitchen/Dining Area........................................................................... Source: Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 28 Azuma House View through Courtyard to Kitchen/Dining......................................... Source: Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 24-25 Azuma House Bridge from Bedroom to Child’s Room............................................. Source: Futagawa, 2007, p. 118 Azuma House Drawings.................................................................................................. Adapted from Source: Jodidio & Ando, 2013, p. 22 Azuma House Physical Barriers....................................................................................... Azuma House Temperature Diagram............................................................................. Azuma House Scent Diagram.......................................................................................... Azuma House Noise Diagram......................................................................................... Azuma House Exterior Line of Sight............................................................................... Azuma House Interior Line of Sight................................................................................ Tokyo Location................................................................................................................. Plastic House Neighborhood.......................................................................................... Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 Plastic House Front Facade.............................................................................................. Adapted from Source: Maisto, 2009 Plastic House Streetscape................................................................................................. Adapted from Source: Maisto, 2009 Plastic House Living/Kitchen/Dining toward Garden................................................ Source: “House in Tokyo,” 2002 Plastic House Exterior Material....................................................................................... Source: Kuma, 2007, p. 212 Plastic House Living/Kitchen/Dining toward Parking................................................. Source: Bognar, 2005 Plastic House Sunken Bedroom Courtyard..................................................................... Source: Bognar, 2005 Plastic House Garden....................................................................................................... Source: Bognar, 2005 Plastic House Drawings.................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Kuma, 2007, p. 212 Plastic House Physical Barriers........................................................................................ Plastic House Temperature Diagram.............................................................................. Plastic House Scent Diagram........................................................................................... Plastic House Noise Diagram..........................................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES

fig 3.72 fig 3.73 fig 3.74 fig 3.75 fig 3.76 fig 3.77 fig 3.78 fig 3.79 fig 3.80 fig 3.81 fig 3.82 fig 3.83 fig 3.84 fig 3.85 fig 3.86 fig 3.87 fig 3.88 fig 3.89 fig 3.90 fig 3.91 fig 3.92 fig 3.93 fig 3.94 fig 3.95 fig 3.96 fig 3.97 fig 3.98 fig 3.99 fig 3.100 fig 3.101 fig 3.102 fig 3.103 fig 3.104 fig 3.105 fig 3.106 fig 3.107 fig 3.108 fig 3.109 fig 3.110

178

Plastic House Exterior Line of Sight................................................................................ Plastic House Interior Line of Sight................................................................................. Tokyo Location................................................................................................................. Rainy Sunny Site Plan..................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Nuijsink, 2012, p. 207 Rainy Sunny Streetscape................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Harada et al., n.d. Rainy Sunny Front Facade and Public Garden................................................................. Adapted from Source: Harada et al., n.d. Rainy Sunny Living/Dining from Second Level............................................................. Source: “Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio,” 2010 Rainy Sunny View of Interior from Terrace..................................................................... Source: “Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio,” 2010 Rainy Sunny View of Living/Dining from Study............................................................. Source: Harada et al., n.d. Rainy Sunny View of Kitchen from Living/Dining........................................................ Source: Harada et al., n.d. Rainy Sunny View of Living/Dining from Entry............................................................ Source: Harada et al., n.d. Rainy Sunny Drawings...................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: “Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio,” 2010 Rainy Sunny Physical Barriers.......................................................................................... Rainy Sunny Temperature Diagram................................................................................ Rainy Sunny Scent Diagram............................................................................................. Rainy Sunny Noise Diagram............................................................................................ Rainy Sunny Exterior Line of Sight.................................................................................. Rainy Sunny Interior Line of Sight .............................................................................. Fukuyama Location.......................................................................................................... Machi House Location..................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 Machi House Street on South End of Home.............................................................. Adapted from Source: Lei, 2012 Machi House Street Frontage........................................................................................... Adapted from Source: “Machi-House / UID Architects,” 2012 Machi House Interaction with Street............................................................................... Source: UID, 2011 Machi House Terrace........................................................................................................ Source: UID, 2011 Machi House Clerestories and Skylights.......................................................................... Source: UID, 2011 Machi House View of Stairwell from Bathroom.............................................................. Source: UID, 2011 Machi House Entry........................................................................................................... Source: Lei, 2012 Machi House Drawings.................................................................................................... Adapted from Source: UID, 2011 Machi House Physical Barriers......................................................................................... Machi House Temperature Diagram............................................................................... Machi House Scent Diagram............................................................................................ Machi House Noise Diagram........................................................................................... Machi House Exterior Line of Sight................................................................................. Machi House Interior Line of Sight.................................................................................. Physical Connection Matrix............................................................................................. Temperature Change Matrix............................................................................................ Scent Transmission Matrix.............................................................................................. Noise Transmission Matrix.............................................................................................. Sightline Matrix.................................................................................................................

80 81 83 83 83 83 84 84 84 84 84 84 86 86 89 89 90 91 93 93 93 93 94 94 94 94 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 103 104 105 106 107

LIST OF FIGURES

fig 3.111 fig 3.112 fig 3.113 fig 3.114 fig 3.115 fig 3.116 fig 3.117 fig 3.118 fig 3.119 fig 3.120 fig 3.121 fig. 3.122 fig 3.123 fig 3.124 fig 3.125 fig 3.126 fig 3.127 fig 3.128 fig 3.129 fig 3.130 fig 3.131 fig 3.132 fig 3.133 fig 3.134 fig 3.135 fig 3.136 fig 3.137 fig 3.138 fig 3.139 fig 3.140 fig 3.141 fig 3.142 fig 3.143 fig 3.144 fig 3.145 fig 3.146 fig 3.147 fig 3.148 fig 3.149 fig 3.150 fig 3.151

Harless Residence Street Frontage................................................................................... Adapted from Source: “Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence,” n.d. Palms Residence Street Frontage..................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Kudler, 2012 Webster Residence Street Frontage .............................................................................. Adapted from Source: “Webster Residence,” n.d. Harless Residence Location............................................................................................. Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 Palms Residence Location............................................................................................... Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 Webster Residence Location............................................................................................ Adapted from Source: “Google Maps,” 2015 Harless Residence View from Living toward Dining....................................................... Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 96 Harless Residence Rear Elevation.................................................................................... Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 93 Harless Residence Front Elevation .............................................................................. Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 91 Harless Residence Floor Plans......................................................................................... Adapted from Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 92 Harless Residence Physical Connection Matrix.............................................................. Harless Residence Physical Barriers................................................................................ Harless Residence Temperature Change Matrix............................................................. Harless Residence Temperature Extremes..................................................................... Harless Residence Scent Transmission Matrix................................................................ Harless Residence Scent Diagram................................................................................... Harless Residence Noise Transmission Matrix............................................................... Harless Residence Noise Diagram................................................................................... Harless Residence Sightline Matrix.................................................................................. Harless Residence Exterior Line of Sight......................................................................... Harless Residence Interior Line of Sight.......................................................................... Palms Residence Front Facade......................................................................................... Source: “Palms Residence / Marmol Radziner Prefab,” 2011 Palms Residence View from Outdoor Living toward Dining......................................... Source: “Palms Residence / Marmol Radziner Prefab,” 2011 Palms Residence Kitchen with Double Height Ceiling.................................................... Source: “Palms Residence / Marmol Radziner Prefab,” 2011 Palms Residence Floor Plans............................................................................................ Adapted from Source: Mathewson, 2010, p. 266 Palms Residence Physical Connection Matrix................................................................ Palms Residence Physical Barriers................................................................................... Palms Residence Temperature Change Matrix............................................................... Palms Residence Temperature Diagram......................................................................... Palms Residence Scent Transmission Matrix.................................................................. Palms Residence Scent Diagram...................................................................................... Palms Residence Noise Transmission Matrix................................................................. Palms Residence Noise Diagram..................................................................................... Palms Residence Sightline Matrix.................................................................................... Palms Residence Exterior Line of Sight........................................................................... Palms Residence Interior Line of Sight............................................................................ Webster Residence View from Rear Living toward Outdoor Court............................ Source: “Webster Residence,” n.d. Webster Residence Front Door..................................................................................... Source: “Webster Residence,” n.d. Webster Residence Front Facade..................................................................................... Source: “Webster Residence,” n.d. Webster Residence Floor Plans........................................................................................ Adapted from Source: Friedman, 2010, p. 88 Webster Residence Physical Connection Matrix.............................................................

109 109 109 109 109 109 111 111 111 111 113 113 115 115 117 117 119 119 120 120 120 123 123 123 123 124 124 126 126 128 128 130 130 132 132 132 135 135 135 135 136

179

LIST OF FIGURES

fig 3.152 fig 3.153 fig 3.154 fig 3.155 fig. 3.156 fig. 3.157 fig. 3.158 fig. 3.159 fig. 3.160 fig. 3.161 fig 3.162 fig. 4.1 fig. 4.2 fig. 4.3 fig. 4.4 fig. 4.5 fig. 4.6 fig. 4.7 fig. 4.8 fig. 4.9 fig 4.10 fig 4.11 fig 4.12 fig 4.13 fig 4.14 fig 4.15 fig 4.16 fig 4.17 fig 4.18 fig 4.19 fig 4.20 fig 4.21 fig 4.22 fig 4.23 fig 4.24 fig 4.25 fig 4.26 fig 4.27 fig 4.28 fig C.1 fig C.2 fig C.3 fig C.4 fig C.5 fig C.6 fig C.7 fig C.8 fig C.9 fig C.10 fig C.11 fig C.12

180

Webster Residence Physical Barriers............................................................................... Webster Residence Temperature Change Matrix............................................................ Webster Residence Temperature Diagram..................................................................... Webster Residence Scent Transmission Matrix.............................................................. Webster Residence Scent Diagram.................................................................................. Webster Residence Noise Transmission Matrix.............................................................. Webster Residence Noise Diagram................................................................................. Webster Residence Sightline Matrix................................................................................ Webster Residence Exterior Line of Sight....................................................................... Webster Residence Interior Line of Sight........................................................................ Potential Site Matrixes...................................................................................................... String Diagrams................................................................................................................. Sectional String Diagram of Harless Residence.............................................................. Existing Harless Residence Ground Level Family Room.......................................... Source: “Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence,” n.d. Existing Harless Residence Stairwell between the Second and Third Levels............ Source: “Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence,” n.d. Existing Harless Residence Master Bedroom................................................................. Source: Hamilton, 2013 Existing Harless Residence Floor Plans......................................................................... Source: adapted from Friedman, 2010, p. 92 Existing Harless Residence Sections............................................................................... Source: adapted from Friedman, 2010, p. 92 Garden Areas in Japanese Case Studies............................................................................ Proposal 1 Garden Location on Ground Floor................................................................ Proposal 2 Garden Location on Ground Floor................................................................ Modified View from Living Toward Dining..................................................................... Modified View from Stair Toward Guest Bed............................................................. Modified View from Carport Entry Toward Front Entry................................................ Modified Floor Plans Overlaid on Existing Floor Plans.................................................. Modified Sections Overlaid on Existing Sections........................................................... Modifications Identifying Sensory Stimulation Changes.............................................. Modified Physical Barriers............................................................................................... Modified Temperature Change Diagram........................................................................ Modified Scent Transmission Diagram.......................................................................... Modified Noise Transmission Diagram.......................................................................... Modified Exterior Sightlines............................................................................................ Modified Interior Sightlines............................................................................................. Physical Connections Matrices........................................................................................ Temperature Change Matrices........................................................................................ Scent Transmission Matrices........................................................................................... Noise Transmission Matrices.......................................................................................... Sightline Matrices.............................................................................................................. String Diagrams................................................................................................................. Winter 2015 Final Review Presentation........................................................................... Source: Nour Kassam Winter 2015 Final Review Presentation........................................................................... Source: Nour Kassam Spring 2015 Final Review Presentation............................................................................ Source: Nour Kassam Spring 2015 Final Review Presentation............................................................................ Source: Nour Kassam Fall 2014 Progress Review 1 Prezi Presentation Overview.............................................. Fall 2014 Progress Review 2 Prezi Presentation Overview.............................................. Fall 2014 Final Review Prezi Presentation Overview....................................................... Winter 2015 Midterm Review Prezi Presentation Overview.......................................... Winter 2015 Final Review Pamphlet/Handout.............................................................. Winter 2015 Final Review Prezi Presentation Overview................................................. Spring 2015 Midterm Review Board................................................................................ Spring 2015 Final Review Board.......................................................................................

136 138 138 140 140 142 142 144 144 144 146 150 150 151 151 151 152 153 154 155 155 156 156 156 156 157 158 160 160 160 161 161 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 224 224 224 224 227 227 228 228 230 231 232 233

LIST OF FIGURES

fig D.1 fig D.2 fig D.3 fig D.4

Views of Sectional Model................................................................................................. Views of Sectional Model................................................................................................. Views of Sectional Model................................................................................................. Views of Sectional Model.................................................................................................

234 235 236 237

181

SPACE PREFERENCES This survey is being distributed as part of a Master of Architecture thesis study, through the NewSchool of Architecture and Design in Downtown San Diego, CA, to understand how cultural identification, and background, may shape privacy and spatial preferences, with a focus on residential spaces. With increasing globalization, architectural homogeneity has become common, ignoring the needs and wants of distinct cultural groups. As density increases with a growing population, more people are living in small urban residences, creating a need for greater space efficiency. It has been shown in several studies that our personal space requirements differ based on our cultural identity and values, and that insufficient space leads to physical and emotional suffering. The question this study hopes to answer is…how can these differing spatial requirements and preferences inform the design of physically and psychologically comfortable spaces for urban living? Please answer all questions to your best ability. You may write “N/A” as the response to questions you prefer not to answer or do not know how to answer. The last page of the survey provides the opportunity to leave additional comments. The survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Send any questions that arise during or after the survey to meganvdougherty@gmail.com. Thank you for your time and participation. Demographics The following questions will ask general demographic information.

What is your age? � � � � � � � �

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 or older

What is your gender? � � �

Male Female Other:__________

Cultural Identification

The following questions are aimed at assessing your cultural identification.

Where were you born? � � �

Japan United States Other:__________

Which of the following do you MOST identify with, CULTURALLY? � � � �

Japanese Japanese American American Other:__________

Background The following questions will identify aspects of your previous living situations.

How many years have you lived in Japan?

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-6 years 6-10 years 10-15 years More than 15 years I have never lived in Japan Other:__________

During what years did you live in Japan? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � �

Before 1940 1940-1950 1951-1972 1973-1989 1990-2001 2002-Present I have never lived in Japan Other:__________

survey

APPENDIX A

� � � � � � � �

APPENDIX A

Which of the following describes your living situation(s) in Japan? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � � � � � � �

How many years have you lived in the United States? � � � � � � � �

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-6 years 6-10 years 10-15 years More than 15 years I have never lived in the United States Other:__________

During what years did you live in the United States? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � �

184

Urban Suburban Rural Single Family Detached Home Attached Home Apartment/Condominium Townhome Loft Live-Work Multi-Level (Stairs) Single-Level I have never lived in Japan Other:__________

Before 1940 1940-1950 1951-1972 1973-1989 1990-2001 2002-Present I have never lived in the United States Other:__________

SURVEY

10. Which of the following describes your living situation(s) in the United States? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Urban Suburban Rural Single Family Detached Home Attached Home Apartment/Condominium Townhome Loft Live-Work Multi-Level (Stairs) Single-Level I have never lived in the United States Other:__________

Current Living Situation

The following questions delve deeper into your current living situation.

11. Where do you currently live? � � �

Japan United States Other:__________

12. How many generations live in your home, including you? � � � �

1 2 3 or more Other:__________

13. How many family members live in your home, including you? � � � � � �

1 2 3 4 5 or more Other:__________

185

APPENDIX A

14. How many people live in your home, including you? � � � � � �

1 2 3 4 5 or more Other:__________

15. List all rooms in your home including outdoor spaces and entry spaces. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ 16. List all adaptations you have made to your current home (ex: spatial changes including remodels). _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ 17. List all rooms in your home that you feel are too small, and explain why. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ 18. List all rooms in your home that you feel are too large, and explain why. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Space Function

The following questions will assess how spaces are used within your home.

19. Do you cook and eat in the same space? � � �

Yes No Other:__________

20. Is your bedroom separated from the rest of your home by a door? � � �

186

Yes No Other:__________

SURVEY

21. How would you describe the bathroom in your home that you use most often? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � �

Attached to a bedroom Fully enclosed Has a door Includes a bathtub or shower Has a window Opens to a private space in the home Opens to a shared space in the home Other:__________

22. Which of the following describes your current living situation? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � � � � � �

Urban Suburban Rural Single Family Detached Home Attached Home Apartment/Condominium Townhome Loft Live-Work Multi-Level (Stairs) Single-Level Other:__________

23. Which of the following living situations do you prefer? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � � � � � �

Urban Suburban Rural Single Family Detached Home Attached Home Apartment/Condominium Townhome Loft Live-Work Multi-Level (Stairs) Single-Level Other:__________

187

APPENDIX A

Privacy Preferences 24. Select all spaces in your home you prefer to be completely separated from the rest of the home by walls and a door. (check all that apply) � � � � � � �

Entry Bedroom Bathroom Kitchen Living room Dining room The spaces mentioned do not need to be enclosed and separated � Other:__________ 25. Select all spaces in your home you prefer to be separated from public (outside the home) access? (check all that apply) � � � � �

Parking Entry Outdoor space (terrace, balcony, patio, etc.) The spaces mentioned do not need to be separated from public access Other:__________

26. When living with others (not including significant others), where do you go most often when you want privacy? � � � � � � � � � �

188

Outside the home Parking Entry Bedroom Bathroom Terrace or other outdoor area Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

SURVEY

27. Which spaces in your home do you prefer not to share with those you live with (not including significant others)? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � �

Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Living room Dining room Other:__________

28. Where do you entertain guests in your home? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � �

Parking Entry Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

29. Rank the following spaces on a scale from 1-8 (1=most public, 8=most private). ____ Parking ____ Entry ____ Bathroom ____ Bedroom ____ Outdoor Space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) ____ Kitchen ____ Living Room ____ Dining Room Privacy + Senses 30. Rank the following interactions on a scale from 1-6 (1=least intimate, 6=most intimate). ____ See (unobstructed, clear view) ____ Partial Sight (ex: shadow or obstructed view) ____ Touch ____ Smell (perfume, body odor, etc.) ____ Hear ____ Sense of Presence (body heat, etc.)

189

APPENDIX A

31. Which of the following smells do you dislike? (check all that apply) � � � � � �

Laundry related smells Cooking related smells Bathroom related smells Traffic related smells (ex: gasoline exhaust) Nature related smells (ex: rain, flowers, grass) Other:__________

32. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being seen by people who are outside your home? (check all that apply) � � � � � � � � �

Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

33. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being seen by people who are inside your home? � � � � � � � � �

190

Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

SURVEY

34. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being heard by people who are outside your home? � � � � � � � � �

Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

35. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being heard by people who are outside your home? � � � � � � � � �

Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

36. Which of the following sounds do you dislike in the more private spaces of your home? (check all that apply) � � � � �

Traffic related sounds (ex: car honking, car acceleration, public transit) Nature related sounds (ex: birds chirping, rain) Media related sounds (ex: television, music) Restroom related sounds (ex: flushing toilet, shower) Other people talking

37. Any other comments or questions? _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ 38. Please provide your email address if you are willing to be contacted with follow up questions. _____________________________________________________

191

APPENDIX A

A.1 Responses

1. What is your age? 65-74 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

4 3 3 4 7 2

2. What is your gender? Female

Male

3. Where were you born? United States Japan

12 11

4. Which of the following do you MOST identify with, CULTURALLY? Japanese American

Japanese

5. How many years have you lived in Japan? I have never lived in Japan More than 15 years 10-15 years 6-10 years 3-6 years 1-3 years Less than 1 year

Japanese Responses 192

10 10 1 0 2 0 0

SURVEY

1. What is your age? 65-74 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24

9 21 7 10 19 11

2. What is your gender? Female

Male

3. Where were you born? Italy Lithuania Cuba Germany United States Japan

1 1 1 2 72 0

4. Which of the following do you MOST identify with, CULTURALLY? American

5. How many years have you lived in Japan? I have never lived in Japan

More than 15 years

10-15 years

6-10 years

3-6 years

1-3 years

Less than 1 year

American Responses 193

APPENDIX A

6. During what years did you live in Japan? 2002-Present 1990-2001 1973-1989 1951-1972 1940-1950

2 8 11 9 1

7. Which of the following describes your living situation(s) in Japan? Single-Level Multi-Level Live-Work Loft Townhome Apartment/Condominium Attached Single Family Detached Rural Suburban Urban

2 3 0 0 0 5 0 7 2 6 8

8. How many years have you lived in the United States? I have never lived in the Unitedâ&#x20AC;Ś

More than 15 years

10-15 years 3-6 years

2 1

9. During what years did you live in the United States? 2002-Present

1990-2001

1973-1989

1951-1972 1940-1950

Japanese Responses 194

2 1

SURVEY

6. During what years did you live in Japan? 2002-Present 1990-2001 1973-1989 1951-1972 1940-1950

3 2 0 2 0

7. Which of the following describes your living situation(s) in Japan? Single-Level Multi-Level Live-Work Loft Townhome Apartment/Condominium Attached Single Family Detached Rural Suburban Urban

2 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 3 1

8. How many years have you lived in the United States? I have never lived in the Unitedâ&#x20AC;Ś 0 More than 15 years

10-15 years

3-6 years

9. During what years did you live in the United States? 2002-Present

1990-2001

1973-1989

1951-1972 1940-1950

35 12

American Responses 195

APPENDIX A

10. Which of the following describes your living situation(s) in the United States? Single-Level Multi-Level Live-Work Loft Townhome Apartment/Condominium Attached Single Family Detached Rural Suburban Urban

7 5 0 0 4 14 4 10 3 17 10

11. Where do you currently live? Japan

United States

12. How many generations live in your home, including you? 3 or more 2 1

0 11 12

13. How many family members live in your home, including you? 5 or more 4 3 2 1

Japanese Responses 196

0 8 2 8 5

SURVEY

38 42 3 3 21 43 11 57 12 54 36

11. Where do you currently live? United Kingdom

Italy

Japan

United States

12. How many generations live in your home, including you? 3 or more

13. How many family members live in your home, including you? 5 or more 4 3 2 1

4 9 7 35 22

American Responses 197

APPENDIX A

14. How many people live in your home, including you? 5 or more 4 3 2 1

0 8 4 9 2

15. Do you cook and eat in the same space? no

yes

16. Is your bedroom separated from the rest of your home by a door? no

yes

17. How would you describe the bathroom in your home that you use most often? opens to a shared space in theâ&#x20AC;Ś opens to a private space in theâ&#x20AC;Ś has a window includes a bathtub or shower has a door fully enclosed attached to a bedroom

Japanese Responses 198

4 7 15 21 20 19 10

SURVEY

14. How many people live in your home, including you? 5 or more 4 3 2 1

5 9 11 39 13

15. Do you cook and eat in the same space? no

yes

16. Is your bedroom separated from the rest of your home by a door? no yes

3 74

23 34 53 71 65 61 51

American Responses 199

APPENDIX A

18. Which of the following describes your current living situation? Single-Level Multi-Level Live-Work Loft Townhome Apartment/Condominium Attached Single Family Detached Rural Suburban Urban

0 0

3 1

19. Which of the following living situations do you prefer? Single-Level Multi-Level Live-Work Loft Townhome Apartment/Condominium Attached Single Family Detached Rural Suburban Urban

11 3 1 2 2 4 1 9 3 13 10

20. Select all spaces in your home you prefer to be completely separated from the rest of the home by walls and a door. dining room living room kitchen bathroom bedroom entry

Japanese Responses 200

0 0

19 20

SURVEY

18. Which of the following describes your current living situation? Single-Level Multi-Level Live-Work Loft Townhome Apartment/Condominium Attached Single Family Detached Rural Suburban Urban

27 27

4 7

19. Which of the following living situations do you prefer? Single-Level Multi-Level Live-Work Loft Townhome Apartment/Condominium Attached Single Family Detached Rural Suburban Urban

14 11 15 54

16 34

20. Select all spaces in your home you prefer to be completely separated from the rest of the home by walls and a door. dining room living room kitchen bathroom bedroom entry

1 2 4 67 68 3

American Responses 201

APPENDIX A

21. Select all spaces in your home you prefer to be separated from public (outside the home) access? these spaces do not need to beâ&#x20AC;Ś outdoor space entry parking

8 11 6 9

22. When living with others, where do you go for privacy? office dining room living room kitchen terrace/outdoor area bathroom bedroom entry parking outside the home

0 0

1 1 1 1

15 3

23. Which spaces in your home do you prefer not to share with others? dining room living room kitchen outdoor space bathroom bedroom entry parking

Japanese Responses 202

0 1 0 1 13 14 0 2

SURVEY

21. Select all spaces in your home you prefer to be separated from public (outside the home) access? these spaces do not need to beâ&#x20AC;Ś outdoor space entry parking

13 56 20 31

22. When living with others, where do you go for privacy? loft dining room living room kitchen terrace/outdoor area bathroom bedroom entry parking outside the home

1 0 2 0

0 0

5 5

49 9

23. Which spaces in your home do you prefer not to share with others? loft office dining room living room kitchen outdoor space bathroom bedroom entry parking

1 2 1 1 0 1 52 50 0 6

American Responses 203

APPENDIX A

24. Where do you entertain guests in your home? I do not entertain guests in myâ&#x20AC;Ś 1 Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom 1 Entry 1 Parking 0

12 21 10 9

25. How private do you prefer your parking area to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

0 0 0

1 5

26. How private do you prefer your entry area to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

Japanese Responses 204

0 0 1 2 0 5 10 5

SURVEY

24. Where do you entertain guests in your home? I do not entertain guests in myâ&#x20AC;Ś 1 Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom 5 Entry 6 Parking 1

52 69 61 50

25. How private do you prefer your parking area to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

1 1 1 1

26. How private do you prefer your entry area to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

0 0 1 0

9 22

American Responses 205

APPENDIX A

27. How private do you prefer your bathroom to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

13 6 1 0 1 2 0 0

28. How private do you prefer your bedroom to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

9 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

29. How private do you prefer your outdoor space to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

Japanese Responses 206

1 1 2 2

5 3 3

SURVEY

27. How private do you prefer your bathroom to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

39 29 4 1 1 3 0 0

28. How private do you prefer your bedroom to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

35 38 1 1 2 0 0 0

29. How private do you prefer your outdoor space to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

0 1 9 8 9 32 14 4

American Responses 207

APPENDIX A

30. How private do you prefer your kitchen to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

0 1 6 3 5 6 1 1

31. How private do you prefer your living room to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

0 0 1 7 7 3 3 2

32. How private do you prefer your dining room to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

Japanese Responses 208

0 0 5 9 6 1 2 0

SURVEY

30. How private do you prefer your kitchen to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

0 4 15 15 28 11 3 1

31. How private do you prefer your living room to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

0 2 14 23 20 11 5 2

32. How private do you prefer your dining room to be? 8 - Most Private 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- Most Public

2 2 21 28 13 7 2 2

American Responses 209

APPENDIX A

33. How intimate is clear, unobstructed, sight of another person? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

3 4 0 6 6 4

34. How intimate is partial, obstructed, sight of another person? 6 - Most Intimate

1- Least Intimate

35. How intimate is touching another person? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

12 6 4 1 0 0

36. How intimate is smelling another person (perfume, body odor, etc)? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

Japanese Responses 210

1 3 11 5 2 1

SURVEY

33. How intimate is clear, unobstructed, sight of another person? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

1 4 5 14 28 25

34. How intimate is partial, obstructed, sight of another person? 6 - Most Intimate

1- Least Intimate

35. How intimate is touching another person? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

51 13 8 5 0 0

36. How intimate is smelling another person (perfume, body odor, etc)? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

6 18 37 10 2 4

American Responses 211

APPENDIX A

37. How intimate is hearing another person? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

1 1 1 4 5 11

38. How intimate is feeling the presence of another person (body heat, etc.)? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

5 7 4 2 4 1

39. Which of the following smells do you dislike? Nature

Traffic

Bathroom Cooking Laundry

17 1 2

40. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being seen by people who are outside your home? Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom Bathroom Entry Parking

Japanese Responses 212

7 9 4 4 18 19 1 1

SURVEY

37. How intimate is hearing another person? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

2 6 9 33 15 12

38. How intimate is feeling the presence of another person (body heat, etc.)? 6 - Most Intimate 5 4 3 2 1- Least Intimate

21 35 11 6 3 1

39. Which of the following smells do you dislike? Nature

Traffic

Bathroom

Cooking Laundry

16 11

40. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being seen by people who are outside your home? Dining Room

Living Room

Kitchen

Outdoor Space

Bedroom

Bathroom

Entry

Parking

American Responses 213

APPENDIX A

41. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being seen by people who are inside your home? Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom Bathroom Entry Parking

1 1 2 0

3 11

42. Which of the following sounds do you dislike in the more private spaces in your home? People Talking

Restroom

Media Nature

6 0

Traffic

43. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being heard by people who are outside your home? Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom Bathroom Entry Parking

Japanese Responses 214

8 10 7 2 16 17 2 2

SURVEY

41. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being seen by people who are inside your home? Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom Bathroom Entry Parking

0 0 0 0

0 1

42. Which of the following sounds do you dislike in the more private spaces in your home? People Talking

Restroom

Media Nature

20 0

Traffic

43. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being heard by people who are outside your home? Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom Bathroom Entry Parking

23 25 19 9 64 74 11 8

American Responses 215

APPENDIX A

44. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being heard by people who are inside your home? Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom Bathroom Entry Parking

Japanese Responses 216

1 1 1 1 13 18 2 2

SURVEY

44. In which of the following spaces are you NOT comfortable being heard by people who are inside your home? Dining Room Living Room Kitchen Outdoor Space Bedroom Bathroom Entry Parking

0 0 0 1 53 73 0 3

American Responses 217

The following interview and discussion occurred on Wednesday, April 1, 2015 in Costa Mesa, California between Megan Dougherty and Kaz Kishimoto.

M: What are some of the main issues you see in residential architecture in Japan currently in comparison to the United States? K: The per unit cost in japan is much higher, availability of land space and build space is much tighter and the level of waterproofing is much higher in Japan, because of the moisture condition. In Southern California we take for granted that water is going to shed and evaporate. That’s why we have so many serious water intrusion issues here. Up in Nor Cal it’s much more seriously taken because it actually rains there. M: Can you describe the early years of your architectural career? K: I started out what with the Japanese firm, Kajima, in their international architecture department, so we had a lot of interaction with the folks in Japan who were doing facilities out there. In the United States we had some very unique projects. One of the strangest projects was a house in Seattle. It was a California bungalow kind of a house, which the owner loved so much that he had it dismantled and moved piece by piece. Our mission was to, stud by stud, identify and record every piece so the house could be re-built. We prepared a document that allowed you to dismantle and reconstruct again. In some way that’s where we’re headed right now in terms of sustainability. We need to be accountable for every single component of the house. There’s a lot of strength in that kind of sentimental value. I think sentimentality is valued much more in Japan than in the US when we are talking about the older generation. M: I’ve read, and heard, that most houses in urban settings in Japan are constructed to last only twenty to thirty years. Have you found this to be true in your experiences? K: I’m not sure about that. Twenty to thirty years? I don’t know. I just can’t believe it’s that short of a time span especially since all of your case studies are customized urban infills. These are not mass-produced buildings to scrape and redo again. They are not a Taco Bell kind of a product, although even those have to be done right. Things get built and to me it just has staying power. That’s what it’s meant to do. That may be the case, but I think why that happens is really what is significant. It’s like a solar farm with solar panels. Those are meant to last twenty years because by then the technology changes, so it is built-in obsolescence. With the house? I don’t know since I grew up in an old house.

M: What was your childhood home like? I grew up in a house in Japan that was over 100 years old and it showed its age. It had a musty smell. I lived in a rural area so it was more of a farm country house not an urban house. My house was sprawling kind of like a classic California house except for the layout. There was a different sequencing of spaces, especially how you enter. I think this is a cultural aspect. A majority of the houses were at least a step or two up from the ground level, which I believe is still very common today. M: Is that ‘step up’ because of the moisture you mentioned previously? K: I think it has to do with moisture, but it’s also a sanitation issue. You take off your shoes when you enter and there’s an array of slippers waiting for you. That’s probably more common in a sprawling residential situation. I’m not sure about tight urban houses. M: I did find in most of my case studies that they have defined entry areas.

K: It’s not that I don’t think they think of it as an issue; I think it’s more of a practicality thing. For example, take thermal comfort. If you have a heavy wall full of insulation it’s because of the thermal comfort and keeping the water and moisture out, the noise insulation is a side effect. Take smell as an example. When you cook, the smell of the food travels through the house. This is a side effect of the open plan, not the kitchen design. I think the open plan is much more prevalent in Japanese houses. Bathrooms definitely have doors and bedrooms maybe have doors, but sometimes bedrooms double as a living room. Duplicity of spaces is more prevalent in Japan. In the United States we want to designate this is this, using whatever kind of a designation seems more luxurious.

APPENDIX B

M: When I was reading through Edward T. Hall’s theory of proxemics, he was saying that noise is where you find the biggest difference between cultural preferences, so it is interesting that you have brought up the idea of acoustical privacy both today and in previous conversations. What do you feel the importance of acoustical separation is in Japan?

interview with kaz kishimoto

K: This area is the threshold between the outside and the inside or before and after. There’s a definite entry lobby area and I think we look at that as a wasted space so we mutate it into the living space, dining space or whatever space, but that’s a very significant difference in houses in Japan. In the United States, there is the outside, a gateway security line, and then you go in and there is a pocket of entry area whether there’s a step or no step there tends to be at least a material difference to give a sense of space outside and space inside. In the house I lived in there were a lot of Shoji screens which provide more visual separations of space. It does nothing for the acoustics but it’s a visual separation so that you have your own visual privacy.

APPENDIX B

M: You moved to the United States at nine years old. Do you remember going through culture shock? What were some of the biggest differences you noticed? K: There was definitely culture shock. We always lived in a rural single family detached house in Japan. When we moved here we moved into an urban apartment, which is culture shock in itself. It was very confining. In Japan, our playground was our neighborhood. When we moved out here it was different. One step in the house and that’s your domain. When I lived in Japan it was in the fifties and we still had a potbelly kettle bath tub, which is tight but deep so you can squat and immerse yourself. I missed that because American bathtubs are linear and you just recline down. You can fill it to the top but you still can’t submerge everything, so that was a shock, and the toilet was definitely a shock. M: What was shocking about the American toilet? K: In the United States you sit with your back to the tank, but I initially sat with the tank to the front of me because I did not know exactly how to sit. When I was studying in Europe I had no idea what bidets were and when I discovered them I told my friends that I discovered a French urinal. Everybody laughed. Those were definitely different than what I found in Japan where we had no sanitation system per se. M: How would you describe your childhood in Japan? K: I came up in Japan after the peace period. In the devastation of the war people were starving, and then within about a five year span of time, the story of a childhood in Japan dramatically changed. I have very happy memories of my childhood. It was after war. There was recovery still happening, but it was a peaceful time when the military was in the city trying to help the Japanese get back to a level of normalcy. M: Did you notice how the senses may have influenced the layout of your childhood home? K: You have the bad senses and bad odors and then the good senses and good smells. The toilet was furthest away from the kitchen and living area, down a hallway somewhere at the tail end of the house, and we recycled the toilet waste. There was a container we used to remove the waste and we used it in the corn fields. It’s raw waste, but it gets filtered back into the dirt. The sense of smell in Japan is utilized a lot in a good way too. If you go into the public spaces in Japan, like in the Osaka area, where it is very dense, restaurants have fans blowing out into the mall area to entice people to go into their restaurant.

220

INTERVIEW WITH KAZ KISHIMOTO

M: A few of the Japanese architects that I’ve been reading about have described the Japanese city as a living room for urban residential. The outcome of this is the absence of a defined living room in Japanese homes. Is that something you have noticed? Does this influence occupant interaction? K: I think there’s a lot of truth to that. In the United States we have our fence and we have our yard. We have our garage door clicker, which has been the most detrimental thing that has happened to us on the urban scale where human interaction has almost disappeared. If there’s a neighbor you like then you do a wave of the hand and that’s the extent of it. M: In most of the Japanese case studies I looked at; there is a layering of privacy with a completely public space and then a semi-public/ private space and then a completely private space, so there’s this sort of transition space that can be inhabited by anyone but is technically part of the home. Even in these tight spaces they make sure that there’s a transition space. The places I was looking at in Southern California don’t seem to have a transition. Here’s the public sidewalk here’s the gate and here’s my space. That’s one of the big publicprivate differences that I noticed. K: I think it depends on the region also but I know in the Tokyo area there’s a shadow line regulation where you cannot cast a shadow onto your neighbor’s environment. It’s the same with the external view corridor. In the United States it’s more of a ventilation aspect. In Japan it’s about the view corridor. Regulations separate the opinions of architects from what they really consider significant. M: How do Japanese regulations differ from regulations in the United States? K: The government operates much tighter in Japan. In the United States it’s a little casual. Japan has strict guidelines and you follow them. When I was working at Kajima, there were lots of comments about American culture being ‘out there’. I’m not sure what that means, but it’s like there’s no boundary. Japanese are born and raised in a very restricted environment culturally and also space wise. Their thinking is much more densified and they look at a lot of what we would consider minute, but for them it’s a very important aspect of it.

221

APPENDIX B

M: Do you think architecture is taught differently in Japan than in the United States? Do you think this restricted culture enhanced by the Japanese architectural education? K: I’m not exactly sure of the differences. My experiences and opinions are based on a nine year old kid growing up in Japan and what I’ve been told, what I’ve experienced and what I’ve seen. I never looked at tight urban settings. I’m sure architectural school is much more international these days. I think this no boundary type of thinking is encouraged. M: I went to Little Tokyo in Los Angeles and spoke to some people at the visitor’s center. I asked them about tatami the use of tatami mats today. The man I spoke with said that they aren’t used anymore because they are so expensive. What are your thoughts on the tatami mat, especially as a traditional unit of measurement? K: The high cost is true, but I think that basic measurement unit is still used in Japan. It’s based on the golden rectangle principle. In my generation we were more regimented to the classical proportions. These days it’s a free for all; the more irregular the better. M: Half of the Japanese case studies I chose were built within the last thirty years in part because of a recent interest of younger generations in more traditional architecture. What do you think influences this reintroduction of tradition? K: Oriental design likes to mystify design a bit more. For example, it is common to provide a ground floor view window because it is intriguing to see what’s below a building. This tactic is especially used as a design feature in hotels and public spaces, but maybe not in residential. Residential buildings get very costly when glazing is placed at the ground level. M: Many of the Japanese case studies I analyzed have open views of the ground floor from the public street, and the upper floor has no visual access from the exterior. In some of the case studies you can see completely through the ground level of the home. Do you think this provides that intrigue you are referring to in a residential situation? K: I’m not sure about that.

222

INTERVIEW WITH KAZ KISHIMOTO

223

fig C.1 (top) Winter 2015 Final Review Presentation Source: Nour Kassam fig C.2 (bottom) Winter 2015 Final Review Presentation Source: Nour Kassam fig C.3 (opposite page - top) Spring 2015 Final Review Presentation Source: Nour Kassam fig C.4 (opposite page - bottom) Spring 2015 Final Review Presentation Source: Nour Kassam

APPENDIX C

presentation boards + photos

APPENDIX C

C.1 Fall 2014 Progress Review 1

226

PRESENTATION BOARDS + PHOTOS

C.2 Fall 2014 Progress Review 2

fig C.5 (opposite page) Fall 2014 Progress Review 1 Prezi Presentation Overview Source: by author fig C.6 Fall 2014 Progress Review 2 Prezi Presentation Overview Source: by author

227

APPENDIX C

C.3 Fall 2014 Final Review

fig C.7 Fall 2014 Final Review Prezi Presentation Overview Source: by author fig C.8 (opposite page) Winter 2015 Midterm Review Prezi Presentation Overview Source: by author

228

PRESENTATION BOARDS + PHOTOS

C.4 Winter 2015 Midterm Review

KINESTHESIA

THERMAL RECEPTORS

OLFACTION

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

CASE STUDY SITES

(Ikebe, 2007)

Always Connected Mostly Connected Rarely Connected Never Connected

Guest/Child’s Room City

Child’s Room

Bedroom

Warm Mostly Warm Mostly Cool Cool

Guest/Child’s Room City

Child’s Room

Fifth Level

Bath

Bedroom

Fifth Level

Second Level Bedroom

Second Level

Fourth Level

Garden

tower house - 1966

Strong Smell Mostly Strong Smell Mostly Weak Smell Weak Smell

Guest/Child’s Room City

Child’s Room

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Second Level

Bath Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Third Level

Courtyard

Living

Bath

Second Level

Living

Courtyard

Living

Ground Level

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

Garden

Kitchen/ Dining

Third Level

Ground Level

Living/ Kitchen

Living

plastic house - 2002

Fourth Level

Bedroom

Bath

Living

Ground Level

Living/ Kitchen

Second Level

(“Plastic House,” n.d.)

Child’s Room

Second Level

Bedroom

Bath

Third Level

Bedroom

Fifth Level

Fourth Level

Bedroom Bath

Living

(“Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio,” 2010)

rainy sunny - 2008

Second Level

Garden

Children’s Room Parking

Parking

Bedroom

Bath

Kitchen

Ground Level

Bath

Storage

Kitchen/ Dining

Basement Level

ishizu house - 1957 Bath

Bedroom

tower house - 1966

Courtyard

Loft

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Bath

Storage

ishizu house - 1957

Terrace

Loft

Entry Garden

Kitchen Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Storage

Bath Kitchen

Bathroom

Bedroom Terrace

Loft

Kitchen

Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Second Level Bath

Study

Loft

Closet

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Public Garden

Parking

Bedroom Living/ Dining

Bath

Laundry

Entry

Garden

(Futagawa, 2007)

azuma house - 1976

Terrace

Second Level

Storage

Kitchen

Ground Level

FUKUYAMA Parking

Bedroom

Living/ Dining

Laundry

Entry

Garden

Bath

Ground Level

Bedroom

Kitchen

Basement Level

Private Garden

Storage

Bedroom

Laundry

Ground Level

Private Garden

Ground Level

Public Garden

Bath

Studio

Bath

Basement Level

Bedroom

Private Garden

OSAKA

Living

azuma house - 1976

Ground Level

sidewalk

Living/ Dining

Bath

Basement Level

Bath

Second Level

Terrace

Bath

Studio

sidewalk

Parking

Courtyard

Section

tower house - 1966

Bath

Garden

Second Level

Public Garden

Bath

Bedroom

Kitchen/ Dining

Basement Level

ishizu house - 1957

Closet

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Ground Level

Studio

Bath

Storage

Ground Level

Bedroom

Study

Loft

Terrace

Second Level

azuma house - 1976

Child’s Room

Ground Level

Children’s Room Bath

Living

Bath-

Bath

Second Level

Closet

Garden

Courtyard

Section

tower house - 1966

Second Level

Bath

Study

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Kitchen/ Dining

Basement Level

Ground Level

Bedroom

Living

Second Level

Bedroom Kitchen

Bath

azuma house - 1976

Section

Parking

Child’s Room

Ground Level

Children’s Room

Living

Bathroom

Bedroom

Child’s Room

Ground Level

sidewalk

Kitchen

(Tokyowing, 2010)

TOKYO

Second Level

Bedroom

ishizu house - 1957

Ground Level

Storage

Terrace

Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Terrace Study

Parking

Storage

Loft

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Kitchen Dining

Terrace

Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Loft

Children’s Room

Living

Parking

Closet

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Garden

Study

Terrace

Closet

Kitchen Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Terrace

Living/ Dining

plastic house - 2002

Kitchen

Parking

Bedroom

Section

rainy sunny - 2008

Garden

Bathroom

Studio

Bedroom

Section

Bedroom

Living/ Dining

Section

machi house - 2011

plastic house - 2002

Kitchen

Section

Parking

Bedroom

Garden

Bedroom

Bedroom Loft

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Section

rainy sunny - 2008

Bath

Study

Parking

Garden

Bedroom

Section

machi house - 2011

Closet

Terrace

Garden Living/ Dining

Bedroom

plastic house - 2002

Section

SURVEY

Kitchen

Kitchen Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Parking

Section

rainy sunny - 2008

AURAL

VISION

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

45-54 11 [10%]

Dining Room

55-64 24 [21%]

Kitchen

64-74 13 [11%]

Parking

current location

Garden

machi house - 2011

Section

age

gender

18-24 15 [13%]

other 1 [1%]

(“Machi-House / UID Architects,” 2012)

machi house - 2011

TOKYO

Climate

25-34 30 [26%] female 61 [53%] 35-44 18 [16%]

Balcony/Terrace

Japan 2 [2%]

Patio/Courtyard

United States 103 [90%]

Entry

Storage

City

Child’s Room

Bedroom

Obstructed View Unobstructed View No View

City

Child’s Room

Bedroom

Second Level

Bedroom

Bath

Fifth Level

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Third Level

Living

Garden

Courtyard

Bath

Kitchen

Children’s Room

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Living/ Kitchen

Bath

Second Level

Bath

Child’s Room

Climate

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Population Density

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Living

Bath

Kitchen/ Dining

Courtyard

Neighborhood of Case Study

Living

Section

ishizu house - 1957

Section

tower house - 1966

azuma house - 1976

Basement Level

(Ikebe, 2007)

Terrace

Loft

Kitchen Dining

Living

Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

tower house - 1966

Single family residential only.

Dining

Living

ishizu house - 1957

Garden

Terrace

Kitchen

Dining

Living

Bathroom

Bedroom

Studio Bath

sidewalk

Entry Garden

Basement Level

Living/ Dining

Bath Kitchen

Storage

Parking

Bedroom

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Climate

Loft

Bedroom

Kitchen

Storage

Bedroom

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Section

Terrace

Garden

Parking

Bedroom

Bath

Laundry

Storage

Ground Level

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Studio

Area

Loft

Study

Garden Living/ Dining

Bedroom

Section

Kitchen

Closet

Study

Living/ Dining

Bedroom

Kitchen

Bedroom

Parking

rainy sunny - 2008

Section

Garden

Kitchen

Closet

Terrace

Parking

Bedroom

Section

Kitchen

Section

Dining

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

plastic house - 2002

rainy sunny - 2008

Coastal 200 Square Miles

Loft

Terrace

Kitchen

Parking

Dining

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Population Density

2,348 People Per Square Mile

Section

(“Plastic House,” n.d.)

machi house - 2011

Warm and Sunny

Laundry

Ground Level

Private Garden

Ground Level

Bedroom

Garden Living/ Dining

Location

Bedroom

Storage Bath

Studio

Loft

Closet

Bedroom

Parking

Bath Bedroom

Private Garden

Ground Level

Ground Level Terrace

Study

Living/ Dining

Bath

Basement Level

Storage Laundry Bedroom

Public Garden

Bath

sidewalk

Public Garden

sidewalk

Studio

Parking

Bath Kitchen Private Garden

Ground Level

Section

azuma house - 1976

Children’s Room

Second Level

Loft

Closet Terrace

Second Level

Ground Level

Public Garden

Bath

Living/ Dining

Bath

Basement Level

Bedroom

tower house - 1966

Bathroom Children’s Room

Bath

Study

Closet

Living/Kitchen/Dining

Second Level

Ground Level

Bath

Bedroom

Kitchen

Second Level Bath

Study

Garden

Terrace

Loft

Second Level

Living/Kitchen/Dining

(Futagawa, 2007)

Bedroom Loft

Second Level

Loft Closet

azuma house - 1976 Bathroom

Bath

Children’s Room

Second Level Bath

Study

(Tokyowing, 2010)

Terrace

Second Level

plastic house - 2002

31,223 People Per Square Mile

FUKUYAMA Storage

ishizu house - 1957

Bath-

Bedroom

Living/Kitchen/Dining

86 Square Miles

Parking

Living

Ground Level

Bath

Coastal

Child’s Room

Ground Level

Storage

Second Level

Studio

Semi-Tropical

Living

Child’s Room

Basement Level

Garden

Location

CASE STUDIES

Area

Bedroom

Section

Ground Level

Parking

Bedroom

Bath

Single family residential only (Ishizu House/Plastic House/Rainy Sunny). Single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial (Tower House).

OSAKA

Ground Level

Bedroom

Ground Level

Storage

Living/Kitchen/Dining

15,640 People Per Square Mile

Child’s Room

Basement Level

Ground Level

845 Square Miles

Second Level

Bath

Studio

japanese 10 [9%]

Children’s Room Bath

Bath

Ground Level

Parking

japanese american 13 [11%]

Bath

Third Level

Ground Level

Parking

Kitchen

Neighborhood of Case Study

other 12 [10%]

Garden

Living

Ground Level

Living/ Kitchen

Section

cultural identification

Second Level

Ground Level

Bath

Coastal

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Bath Living

Garden

Living

Bath

Second Level

Bedroom

Child’s Room

Second Level

Bedroom

Fourth Level

Second Level

Bedroom

Child’s Room

Fifth Level

Bath

Moderate

american 76 [66%]

Guest/Child’s Room

Fourth Level

Bedroom

Population Density

other 6 [5%]

Child’s Room

Fifth Level

Terrace

Area

Storage Loud Mostly Loud Mostly Quiet Quiet

Guest/Child’s Room

Bedroom

Location male 49 [43%]

machi house - 2011

plastic house - 2002

(“Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio,” 2010)

(“Machi-House / UID Architects,” 2012)

rainy sunny - 2008

machi house - 2011

Neighborhood of Case Study

Single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial.

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO

Climate Location Area Population Density Neighborhoods

INTIMATE [private] DISTANCE

PERSONAL [semi-private] DISTANCE

SOCIAL [semi-public] DISTANCE

PUBLIC [public] DISTANCE

kinesthesia thermal receptors olfaction aural vision

Megan Dougherty NewSchool of Architecture + Design Thesis 2014-2015

Semi-Arid Coastal 9.5 Square Miles 5,180 People Per Square Mile EAST VILLAGE Mixed Use New Construction and Conversions GASLAMP Commercial MARINA High Rise Mixed Use CIVIC/CORE Commerical and Civic COLUMBIA High Rise Residential CORTEZ HILL Single Family Residential (Victorian + Row Homes) LITTLE ITALY Single and Multi Family Residential + Commercial

design

229

APPENDIX C

Yes No Other:__________

____ See (unobstructed, clear view) ____ Partial Sight (ex: shadow or obstructed view) ____ Touch ____ Smell (perfume, body odor, etc.) ____ Hear ____ Sense of Presence (body heat, etc.) Which of the following smells do you dislike? Laundry related smells Cooking related smells Bathroom related smells Traffic related smells (ex: gasoline exhaust) Nature related smells (ex: rain, flowers, grass) Other:__________

Select spaces you prefer to be separated from the rest of the by walls and a door. Entry Bedroom Bathroom Kitchen Living room Dining room The spaces mentioned do not need to be separated Other:__________

Where are you NOT comfortable being seen by people who are outside your home? Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

Select all spaces in your home you prefer to be separated from public access? Parking Entry Outdoor space (terrace, balcony, patio, etc.) The spaces mentioned do not need to be separated Other:__________

Where are you NOT comfortable being seen by people who are inside your home?

When living with others where do you go most often when you want privacy?

According to anthropologist Edward T. Hall; cultural identification shapes proxemic, or personal space, distances through sensory perception. If proxemic distances are translated into architectural space then we, as designers, can understand cultural spatial perceptions and preferences to design physically and psychologically comfortable spaces for urban life. Japanese culture is utilized as a cultural case study to develop proxemetric design, a tool for culturally sensitive residential design. Adjacencies of people in proxemic distances impact interaction in those spaces just as adjacencies of architectural spaces impact interactions between occupants in those spaces.

Where are you NOT comfortable being heard by people who are outside your home?

Which spaces do you prefer not to share with those you live with? Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Living room Dining room Other:__________

Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

Where do you entertain guests in your home?

Scholarly writings, survey responses, and urban residential case studies are studied to find preferences for spatial layout and adjacencies based on sensory relationships. Urban residential case studies are analyzed to understand how each of the senses, identified by Hall to influence proxemic distances, create relationships between residential spaces in Japan.

Where are you NOT comfortable being heard by people who are outside your home?

Parking Entry Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

Rank the following spaces on a scale from 1-8 (1=most public, 8=most private). ____ Parking ____ Entry ____ Bathroom ____ Bedroom ____ Outdoor Space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) ____ Kitchen ____ Living Room ____ Dining Room

Which sounds do you dislike in the private spaces of your home? Traffic related sounds (ex: car honking, car acceleration, public transit) Nature related sounds (ex: birds chirping, rain) Media related sounds (ex: television, music) Restroom related sounds (ex: flushing toilet, shower) Other people talking

Megan Dougherty NewSchool of Architecture + Design Thesis 2014-2015

1957 ishizu house

The same methodology is applied to urban residential case studies in Southern California to identify how these relationships differ from culture to culture. One of the Southern California case studies is chosen to be transformed into a space for a culturally identifying Japanese family to understand how these differences may affect the outcome of culturally sensitive residential design.

Parking Entry Bathroom Bedroom Outdoor space (terrace, patio, balcony, etc.) Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

Outside the home Parking Entry Bedroom Bathroom Terrace or other outdoor area Kitchen Living room Dining room Other:__________

Edward T. Hall

Do you cook and eat in the same space?

Rank the following interactions from 1-6 (1=least intimate, 6=most intimate).

“Man's sense of space is a synthesis of many sensory inputs: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and thermal. Not only does each of these constitute a complex system...but each is molded and patterned by culture. Hence, there is no alternative to accepting the fact that people reared in different cultures live in different sensory worlds.”

SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONS

design

C.5 Winter 2015 Final Review

1966 tower house

harless residence

MANHATTAN BEACH

2002 plastic house

TOKYO

2008 rainy sunny

palms residence

VENICE BEACH

fig C.9 Winter 2015 Final Review Pamphlet/Handout Source: by author

230

3. Modification of structural and non structural architectural elements, and relocation of interior structural elements to exterior walls to allow for flexible interior spaces for future adaptation for future residents of differing cultural identities.

Living

Bathroom

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Terrace

Storage

Laundry

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Kitchen Dining

Living

Terrace

Parking

Entry Garden

Parking

Garden

2011 machi house Kitchen

Dining

Living

Bathroom

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Terrace

Bedroom

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Storage

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Loft

Parking

Bedroom

Entry

Garden

Storage

Laundry

Ground Level

Kitchen Dining

Kitchen

Second Level

Loft

Section

Terrace

Children’s Room

Loft

Storage Laundry

Laundry

Ground Level

Kitchen Dining

Bathroom

Bathroom Terrace

Second Level

Loft

Section

vision

Children’s Room

Loft

Bedroom

Ground Level

Loft

Section

Terrace

Children’s Room

Second Level

Storage

Ground Level

Kitchen Dining

Living

sidewalk

Laundry

Loft

Section

Dining

Loft

Bedroom

sidewalk

Storage

Kitchen

Loft

Bedroom

Ground Level

Terrace

Second Level

Loft

Entry Garden

aural Bath-

Bathroom

Children’s Room

sidewalk

Kitchen Dining

Second Level

Parking

olfaction

BathTerrace

Children’s Room

sidewalk

Living

sidewalk

Kitchen Dining

Second Level

1. Realocation of space uses. 2. Removal and/or addition of non-structural architectural elements.

FUKUYAMA

CASE STUDIES thermal receptors Bathroom Terrace

sidewalk

IMPLEMENTATION

webster residence

kinesthesia: physical connectedness without barrier thermal receptors: temperature extremes olfaction: transmission of scent aural: transmission of sound vision: sightlines

kinesthesia

Modification of Southern California residence (Harless Residence) for an occupant identifying culturally as Japanese at three levels to manipulate sensory transmission between spaces:

1976 azuma house

OSAKA

Loft

Terrace

Kitchen

Parking

Section

Dining

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Loft

Terrace

Kitchen

Parking

Section

Dining

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Entry

Garage

Family Room

MANHATTAN BEACH

Bedroom Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

City

Bath

Living Room

Dining Room

Third Level

Bedroom

harless residence

Master Bedroom Bath

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Garage

Family Room

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

City

Bedroom

Bathroom

Bath

Strong Smell

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Weak Smell

Third Level

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

VENICE BEACH

Bath

Bedroom

OLFACTION

Ground Level

Second Level

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Family Room

Guest/Child’s Room

City

Bath

Dining Room

Kitchen

Living Room

Third Level

AURAL

Ground Level Quiet

Loud

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

18-24 15 [13%] 25-34 30 [26%]

Entry Garden

Storage

35-44 18 [16%] 45-54 11 [10%]

Laundry

1957 ishizu house

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

55-64 24 [21%] 64-74 13 [11%]

Section Mild

BathTerrace

Kitchen Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Extreme

Second Level

Loft

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Storage

current location

1966 tower house

Bedroom

Laundry

Ground Level

TOKYO

Loft

Extreme Mostly Extreme Mostly Mild Mild

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Children’s Room

Living

Garden

Bathroom

Japan 2 [2%] United States 103 [90%] other 6 [5%]

Bedroom

Section Weak Smell

Bathroom Terrace

Kitchen

Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Strong Smell

Second Level

Loft

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Storage

2002 plastic house

Bedroom

Laundry

Ground Level

Entry

Garage

palms residence

Always Connected Mostly Connected Rarely Connected Never Connected

Living

Loft

Parking

Ground Level

Loft

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Loft

Strong Smell Mostly Strong Smell Mostly Weak Smell Weak Smell

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

gender

Section

AURAL

Extreme

Kitchen

Mild

THERMAL RECEPTORS

Ground Level

Kitchen Dining

age

Physical Barrier

Bathroom Terrace

Second Level

sidewalk

Bedroom

KINESTHESIA

Bath

sidewalk

Bath

THERMAL RECEPTORS

Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Second Level

OLFACTION

Dining Room

Third Level

sidewalk

Living Room

Kitchen

Physical Barrier

KINESTHESIA

PRESENTATION BOARDS + PHOTOS

BathTerrace

Kitchen Dining

other 1 [1%]

Quiet

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Loud

2008 rainy sunny

Second Level

Loft

female 61 [53%]

OSAKA

Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

City

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Parking

Entry Garden

male 49 [43%]

sidewalk

Master Bedroom

Storage Laundry

Ground Level

Master Bedroom Bath

Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest/Child’s Room

Loft

Loud Mostly Loud Mostly Quiet Quiet

Terrace

Kitchen Dining

Parking

Children’s Room

Living

Garden

Bathroom

Bedroom

Bathroom

Bathroom Terrace

Kitchen

Dining

Living

webster residence

Garage

Entry

Family Room

Garage

Bath

Ground Level

Family Room

Bath

Ground Level

City

Terrace

Children’s Room

Kitchen

Dining

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

Parking

Entry

Garden

Bathroom

Storage

FUKUYAMA

Loft

Parking

Bedroom

Entry

Garden

Storage

Laundry

Terrace

Kitchen

Parking

Section

cultural identification

other 12 [10%] japanese american 13 [11%] japanese 10 [9%]

Laundry

Ground Level

Dining

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

american 76 [66%]

Loft

Obstructed View Unobstructed View No View

Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

Second Level

Loft

Ground Level

Entry

1976 azuma house

Section

Second Level

sidewalk

Dining Room

Kitchen

Living Room

Third Level

Bedroom

VISION

Kitchen

Dining Room

VISION

Family Room

Bath

Living Room

Third Level

sidewalk

Entry

Garage

Ground Level Unobstructed View Obstructed View No View

Terrace

Kitchen

Parking

Dining

Garden

Living

Children’s Room

Bathroom

Bedroom

2011 machi house

Section

kinesthesia | thermal receptors | olfaction | aural | vision

Megan Dougherty NewSchool of Architecture + Design Thesis 2014-2015

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

design

Third Level

Bedroom

Master Bedroom Bath

Bath

Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Garage

Family Room

Bath

Ground Level

fig C.10 Winter 2015 Final Review Prezi Presentation Overview Source: by author

231

APPENDIX C

C.6 Spring 2015 Midterm Review

design

Living Room

Kitchen

physical connection | temperature change | scent transmission | noise transmission | sightlines Dining Room

Third Level

Bedroom Master Bedroom Bath Bath Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Family Room

Garage 3

HARLESS RESIDENCE

Bath

Ground Level

Year: 2004 Location: Manhattan Beach, California, United States Architect: Dean Nota Architect Typology: Single Family, 3-Story, Detached Home Size: 2241 s.f. Surroundings: Residential

Image Sources: Hamilton, S. C. (2013, July). Earthy Minimalism. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://oursouthbay.com/July-2013/Earthy-Minimalism/ Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.california-architects.com/en/deannota/projects-3/harless_residence-4626

PROPOSAL 1 stairwell garden

Scale: 1/16â&#x20AC;? = 1â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

PROPOSAL 2

central garden

Globalization has led to internationalized architecture. Buildings and spaces are increasingly homogenized while cultural values are found to not be converging. Anthropological and psychological studies find that space preference differs per culture and adequate space allocation is essential for psychological well-being. This study aims to develop a design tool to remedy this trend of homogenization, by focusing on cultural space preference, to create psychologically comfortable spaces for the culture of occupancy.

fig C.11 Spring 2015 Midterm Review Board Source: by author

232

Anthropologist Edward T. Hall finds that cultural identification shapes personal space distances through sensory interactions. Translating these distances into architectural space may allow designers to understand cultural spatial preferences to design psychologically comfortable urban residential spaces. Scholarly writings, survey responses, and case studies are analyzed to find preferences for spatial relationships based on sensory transmission. Urban residential case studies are analyzed to understand how the senses, identified by Hall to influence personal space distances, create relationships between residential spaces, utilizing Japan as a cultural case study. Japanese findings are applied to an urban residential case study in Southern California. The Southern California home is transformed into a space for a culturally identifying Japanese family illustrating how these differences may affect the outcome of culturally sensitive residential design. When comparing the results of Japan and Southern California case studies, clear sensory transmission differences are observed. Japanese and American survey responses support differing preferences for public and private spaces, activity systems, and sensory interactions. The analysis results align with previous studies on the topic of cultural difference and space planning. Modification of interior and exterior elements of the Southern California home successfully develop sensory characteristics in line with Japanese preference findings, showing the viability of this tool to create spaces reflective of cultural preferences.

Megan Dougherty NewSchool of Architecture + Design Thesis 2014-2015

PRESENTATION BOARDS + PHOTOS

C.7 Spring 2015 Final Review

THERMAL RECEPTION

OLFACTION

touch between spaces

temperature exchange between spaces

scent transfer between spaces

PHYSICAL CONNECTION

TEMPERATURE CHANGE

SCENT TRANSMISSION

KINESTHESIA

male female other 1

current location japan 2 united states other 6

49 61

103

How private do you prefer your outdoor space to be?

How private do you prefer your living room to be?

Do you cook and eat in the same space?

Which sounds do you dislike in the private spaces of your home?

13% 39%

22%

29%

35% 65%

61%

87%

11%

71%

Which spaces are you not comfortable being seen by people within your home? 2% 2% 8% 2% 6%

50%

In which spaces are you not comfortable being heard by people who are inside your home? 3% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3%

50%

30%

33%

45%

17% 1%

1% 2%

1% 23%

22% 49%

51%

48%

52%

77%

99%

private public

38%

29%

private public

traffic media restroom people talking

yes no

11%

36% parking entry bathroom bedroom outdoor space kitchen living room dining room

63%

41% parking entry bathroom bedroom outdoor space kitchen living room dining room

56%

To understand feelings of privacy within the home and intimacy of senses, 23 people culturally associating as Japanese or Japanese American are surveyed. For the purposes of identifying key elements separating this culture from others, 77 American responses are gathered. When asked to rank spaces in the home from most public (1) to most private (8), Japanese and Japanese American respondents rank the spaces as follows: (1) parking; (2) entry; (3) outdoor space; (4) living room; (5)dining area; (6)kitchen; (7) bedroom; (8) bathroom. When asked to rank the intimacy of different sensory interactions from least intimate (1) to most intimate (6), Japanese and Japanese American respondents rank the senses as follows: (1) aural; (2) obstructed vision; (3) unobstructed vision; (4) olfaction; (5) thermal reception; (6) kinesthesia.

visibility between spaces

NOISE TRANSMISSION

SIGHTLINES

Bath

Bath Bedroom

Year: 2004 Location: Manhattan Beach, California Architect: Dean Nota Architect Typology: Single Family, 3-Story, Detached Size: 2241 s.f. Surroundings: Residential

Bath

1976 azuma house osaka, japan

Garage

Second Level

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest Room

City

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest Room

City

Bedroom

Bathroom

Toilet Room

Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Parking

Balcony/Terrace

Patio/Courtyard

Entry

Storage

Guest Room

City

City Extreme Variable Mild

City Strong Smell Some Smell Weak Smell

Family Room

Quiet Living Room

Dining Room

Kitchen

Loud

Third Level

Bedroom Master Bedroom

Bath Bedroom

Bath

Bath Bedroom

Second Level

Entry

Entry Garage

27th Place

Family Room Bath

Garage

Family Room

Scale: 1/8” - 1’

Removal of garage door creates carport parking to double as additional entry way and increase external sensory access.

A handrail instead of walls around balcony increase exterior sightlines.

Lightwell increases sightlines, airflow, and daylight dispursal between levels.

Walls around lightwell opening maintain privacy and the structural integrity of the home.

Operable skylight provides increased venitlation and daylight.

Handrail around lightwell opening increases visual, lighting, and ventilation access to other areas of the home.

Removal of doors and shared wall between guest bedrooms creates a flexible space with exterior views while maintaining sleeping privacy with sleeping nooks.

Additional window in the kitchen increases exterior sightlines and daylight access.

Bath Ground Level

Ground Level Unobstructed Obstructed No View

Living Room

Dining Room

Third Level

Bedroom Master Bedroom

Bath

Bathroom on upper level provides convenience. Living Room

Dining Room

Opening between lightwell and master bath provides ventilation and daylight.

Third Level Operable windows between ground level living space and lightwell/interior garden provide visual access to nature, while an offset to adjacent garage wall maintains privacy.

Bedroom Master Bedroom

Bath Bedroom

Bath

Bath Bedroom Operable windows around lightwell/interior garden provide ventilation to upper levels.

Second Level

Entry Garage

Family Room

A continuous walkway through the ground level of the home without barriers provides ventilation and visual access throught the ground level.

Family Room Bath Bath

Physical connection focuses on spaces which are never separated through doors or walls and spaces including partitions which allow connection at some point. Temperature change is mapped from the bathtub/shower, kitchen, weather and sunlight. Scent transmission is mapped from the bathroom, kitchen and traffic and other city created scents. Noise Transmission is mapped from the communal space in the home (usually the living room) and city generated noise. Sightlines are mapped from both the exterior street and interior communal spaces, looking at both obstructed and unobstructed views.

Obstructed View Unobstructed View No View

Ground level interior garden provides access to nature.

Ground Level

Two important ideological shifts in Japan have contributed to unique residential design eras; post World War II westernization, and a return to traditional housing desires in 1989. All six Japanese case studies are post World War II, and three are post 1989. Case studies are analyzed in terms of sense stimulations occurring between spaces. Diagramming of the Harless Residence, which is chosen for modification, is shown as representative of diagramming and analysis completed for all case studies.

City Loud Some Noise Quiet

Bath

Second Level

Ground Level

Dining Room

Kitchen Bedroom

Master Bedroom

Garage

Ground Level

Kitchen

sightlines

Kitchen

noise transmission

Third Level

internal sightlines

scent transmission

Bath Bedroom

Garage

Family Room

Dining Room

1 Entry

Bath

Ground Level

Living Room

noise transmission

scent transmission

temperature change

Strong Smell

Bedroom

Bedroom Master Bedroom

Bath

external sightlines

physical connection

Dining Room

Entry

Weak Smell

Bath

4 Living Room

EXISTING SECTIONS

Bedroom Master Bedroom

Third Level

Extreme

Kitchen

2 4

Mild

Second Level

Ground Level

Dining Room

Third Level

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

Bedroom Master Bedroom

Living Room

HARLESS RESIDENCE [project information]

Kitchen

Dining Room

Kitchen

Living Room Third Level

temperature change

Physical Barrier

Entry

2011 machi house fukuyama, japan

2008 rainy sunny tokyo, japan

2002 plastic house tokyo, japan

1966 tower house tokyo, japan

1957 ishizu house tokyo, japan

webster residence venice beach, ca

palms residence venice beach, ca

noise transfer between spaces

detail level visible of adjacent person

Image sources (left to right): Friedman, A. (2010). Narrow Houses: New Directions in Efficient Design (1 edition). New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press. | Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.california-architects.com/en/deannota/projects-3/harless_residence-4626 | Hamilton, S. C. (2013, July). Earthy Minimalism. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://oursouthbay.com/July-2013/Earthy-Minimalism/

physical connection

CASE STUDIES harless residence manhattan beach, ca

japanese case studies

harless residence

Adapted from Image sources (clockwise from top left): Dean Nota Architect - Harless Residence. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.california-architects.com/en/deannota/projects-3/harless_residence-4626 | Kudler, A. G. (2012, June 28). Touring Marmol Radziner Prefab’s Palms Residence in Venice. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/touring_marmol_radziner_prefabs_palms_residence_in_venice.php | Webster Residence. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.houzz.com/projects/101673 | Ikebe, K. (2007, August). Ishizu House. GA Houses, Japan VI(100), 68–73. | Tokyowing. (2010, August 16). Tower House by Azuma Takamitsu. Retrieved from https://tokyowing.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/azuma-house/ | Hsu, J. (2011, January 19). Row House (Azuma House) 住吉の長屋 by Tadao Ando 安藤忠雄. Retrieved from http://www.ananasamiami.com/2011/01/row-house-azuma-house-by-tadao-ando.html | Machi-House / UID Architects. (2012, October 29). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.archdaily.com/285165/machi-house-uid-architects/ | Rainy|Sunny / Mount Fuji Architects Studio. (2010, February 3). Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.archdaily.com/48381/rainy-sunny-mount-fuji-architects-studio/ | Maisto, P. (2009, September 4). Kengo Kuma & Associates — Plastic House. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://divisare.com/projects/105499-Kengo-Kuma-Associates-Plastic-House

Always Connected Sometimes Connected Never Connected

VISION

speech volume necessary to hear adjacent person

Findings suggest that private areas of the Japanese home do not physically connect, have few temperature extremes, have slight olfactory infiltration, may or may not have visual access to interior or exterior portions of the home, and may be infiltrated by noise.

Second Level

modified residence

HARLESS RESIDENCE [sensory transmission diagramed]

City

AURAL

28th Street

japanese 10 japanese american 13 american other 12

gender

american japanese

SURVEY

cultural identification

intimate - personal - social - public

Scan QR code to view comprehensive study with all survey results and case study analyses. How private do you prefer your entry area to be?

PERSONAL SPACE DISTANCES [edward t. hall]

EXISTING FLOOR PLANS

Globalization has led to internationalized architecture. Buildings and spaces are increasingly homogenized while cultural values are found to not be converging. Anthropological and psychological studies find that space preference differs per culture and adequate space allocation is essential for psychological well-being. This study aims to develop a design tool to remedy this trend of homogenization, by focusing on cultural space preference, to create physically, socially, and psychologically comfortable spaces for the culture of occupancy.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

[proxemetrics]

Instructor Vuslat Demircay, PhD. Committee Eve Edelstein, M.Arch, PhD. (Neuroscience), EDAC, Assoc. AIA, F-AAA Leigh Ann Pfeiffer, LEED AP, Assoc. AIA NewSchool of Architecture + Design Three Quarter Thesis, 2014-2015

18-34 15 25-34 30 35-44 18 45-54 11 55-64 24 54-74 13

scent transfer between people

[edward t. hall]

design

Megan Dougherty

age

temperature exchange between people

touch between people

a tool for creating culturally sensitive residential spaces

SECTION CUT

SELECTED VIEWS [left]

From carport entry through ground level toward main entry.

[middle]

From stairwell through lightwell opening toward guest room.

[right]

From living room through lightwell opening toward kitchen.

placeholder for rendered views

Findings from the case study sense diagrams are mapped into adjacency matrixes to compare results across cultures. The goal at the end of the study is to modify the Harless Residence to align the sensory findings discovered in that space with the findings from the Japanese case studies. Overall findings are represented with string diagrams (below) to show differences in sensory densities.

fig C.12 Spring 2015 Final Review Board Source: by author

233

fig D.1 Views of Sectional Model Source: by author

fig D.2 Views of Sectional Model Source: by author

APPENDIX D

model photos

APPENDIX D

fig D.3 Views of Sectional Model Source: by author

236

MODEL PHOTOS

fig D.4 Views of Sectional Model Source: by author

237

design