Levittown Family Home.Photo.Invincible Armor.n.d.web.http://invinciblearmor.blogspot.com/2010/08/.
According to the American Physiological Society, "Neuroscientists do agree: humans and their brains and minds are shaped, and normally function, in continuous interaction with other people. Not only the physical presence, but also the metnal image of another person can affect teh state of one's brain, behavior, and attitude." [Hari]
This means that humans need other humans to not only be in their surroundings but to socially interact with in order to create mental relationships.
How has the size of homes influenced this required form of social interaction? What type of positive social structures between families and community were established in the theories and designs of architectural leaders attempting to to create solutions to the affordable, middle class home of the 40's, 50's, and 60's? How are they different from today? What type of relationships were established due the design intentions and also to the economy of size?
Human Beings require interaction with one another in order to function.
According to the American Physiological Society, "Neuroscientists do agree: humans and their brains and minds are shaped, and normally function, in continuous interaction with other people. Not only the physical presence, but also the metnal image of another person can affect teh state of one's brain, behavior, and attitude." [Hari]
This means that humans need other humans to not only be in their surroundings but to socially interact with in order to create mental relationships.
How has the size of homes influenced this required form of social interaction? What type of positive social structures between families and community were established in the theories and designs of architectural leaders attempting to to create solutions to the affordable, middle class home of the 40's, 50's, and 60's? How are they different from today? What type of relationships were established due the design intentions and also to the economy of size?
i think this posts is refreshing because it is starting to talk about social structures and direct relationships between design and family, and even perhaps community relationships. i think primarily it is focusing on size, and in that regard i believe that breuer's house in the garden can be brought into the discussion.
ReplyDeletei also think that we can bring in notions of community and inter-relationships with place in a broader since that exists in frank lloyd wright's usonian community.
please offer some strategic insight about the space standards of today and what type of social structures and relationships it is honing versus the smaller homes proposed by the designers above. finally, think about how the smaller size and higher quality of materials relate to larger sizes clad in synthetic materials.
As mentioned in natural house by Wright, he designed homes which were open in plan with private sectors off to the sides. The idea certainly created a social relationship to the people residing in this type of home. This idea of social interaction is seen in homes today. Kitchens are large with gathering spaces and often open up to the living areas. Often, basements an additional area made for entertaining. Private areas encourage storage (with large closets) and a sleeping domain, but not much else compared to the open social areas. In contrast with Wright’s ideas of creating around “human scale,” (pg 133), homes in recent times are designed with much taller ceilings throughout the home, sometimes triple the height of an average adult. They are also blown up on a horizontal scale, with the idea that the larger the space, the more to entertain. How can recent homes be scaled-back while still encouraging the need for entertainment, socializing and family time?
ReplyDeletethis solution can also be found in BREUER's house in the garden...but what make's BREUER's so profound is he thought of some of the social space as FLEX space that could become variously assigned programs in accordance to the different stages of growth and age the family was in. It was never in excess, but efficient, flexible, and defined by fantastic relationships and "spaciousness" through sloping ceilings and connections to "outdoor living". the notion of the ceiling plan and Wright with his flat roofs at much lower scales is an economy of use of materials and money. so often today, houses seem to declare their socil status with extraneous "crowns" fancifully adorning the house. only thing is, this space is often un-used or noticed from within.
Deletein terms of how, i think it is a shift of values, which i believe has begun. value in sustainable, natural mateirals. in order to apply them in our homes as wright, nuetra, and breuer did, we may need to cut the square feet. also bigger is no considered excessive...quality or quantity.
Laura...give some further and more specific insight from your essay to help generate the the direction of the discussion. sq. ft. averages through time, etc.
ReplyDeleteaccording to the United States Census the size of homes have increased from year to year. In 1973 the average square footage of a home was 1.660 and in 2010 the average square footage of a home was 2,392. That is a 70% increase over a 37 year period. If this pattern were to continue 37 years from now (2047) the average home size will be 4,066 square feet.
ReplyDeleteI find this pattern to be interesting given the statement made by Richard Neutra:
“We have been grateful for the chance to design thousands of dwelling units and houses and have seen clearly how a necessary shrinkage of interior living space correlates with growing dependence of the occupants on what lies outside their legally-own, usable property.” (Neutra, 31)
The solution presented by Neutra in the 1950's has had no effect on modern day housing trends. My question is why? the size of homes effects interaction and others and it is scientifically proven that this interaction if required for mental stability. The logical answer would be to decrease the sizes of homes to promote social interaction.
This contradiction to the rational solution stems back to Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Within his novel The Origin of Species, Darwin explains how survival stems to from who can evolve and adapt the fastest will prevail and become the superior species. Now that this fight for "top dog" is no longer for life, currently this fight is for status.
How as designers can we marry these two conflicting human requirements (need for social interaction, desire to compete for superiority) to create a community that caters to not only the aesthetics of an area but to the basic human needs?
laura i think the problem lies in the difference between the traditional neighborhood and the cul-de-sac conventional neighborhoods. there is little place to entertain outside of our home, unless we pack up the car and go for a drive. also the cost of entertainment outside of the home is drastically on the rise. so perhaps if our homes actually possessed qualities described Wright and Nuetra...qualities of "sunlight space becoming the most useful servant of a higher order of the human spirit"..."integral character of extended vistas gained by marrying buildings with ground levels, or blending them with slopes and gardens..." "we have no longer an outside and an inside as two separate things. Now the outside may come inside, and the inside may and does go outside. they are of each other." [wright, various pages, the natural house]...perhaps we would be more apt, proud, and able to entertain and feel enlightened and entertained by our home itself? is this a fair assumption?
DeleteWhat I find interesting is the way society is actually 'interacting' today. Technology: computers, tablets and phones. How many people do you pass (or are knocked into by) on a daily basis that are caught with headphones in and heads down texting? The spaces people 'need' may be more of a status fulfillment that an actual 'need'. Along the lines of technology, everything is becoming smaller and compact--which should imply that people can handle smaller homes. With the double income families and family unit size of 2.63 (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/04/22/census-2010-household-size-trends/) it doesn't add up in my mind why people want such large amounts of square footage (outside of a status thing)? How about the upkeep? I will make the argument that the family unit will probably start to increase as the multigeneration families are beginning to rise.
ReplyDeleteA design like this (though severely overpriced in my opinion) would be a good compromise for harmony and privacy. Families could grow with the addition of pods but could also offer community spaces and then pods that were private spaces. (http://www.bluhomes.com/homes/breezehouse/#http://www.bluhomes.com/wp-content/uploads/bz-r-CA-06-xxxx-0004-ext-02-590.jpg)
In many neighborhoods there are community gardens, community green spaces, playgrounds, etc. For some though, they just prefer isolation whether it is healthy or not.
candace...great points. i agree, everything is shrinking. so it seems to only make sense that this trend will follow with the development of new homes. i see this along with the integration of multi-generational living as an option...which were options in levittown and in breuer's house in the garden. this is an idea that has existed, but there doesn't seem to be any real innovation of how it can be integrated in the development of homes in suburbia.
DeleteNeutra suggested the need for community and neighborliness by stating that "as a rule, millionaires meet and know their immediate neighbors very little". Later he states that in other countries where a less abundant motorization and therefore a greater density of settlement continues to exist, the concept of "country house" is not a prevalent. I think this is very telling of today's American economy. Industrialization and technology, as Candace mentions, has given us the opportunity to build large homes, acquire private space, use whatever materials we want..synthetic or natural (not local resources only), and travel to partake in any activities we choose. The human need to socialize is still happening, however our homes (many times no matter the distance between them) are not encouraging this. It seems housing has become of form of being exclusive and not inclusive.
ReplyDeleteConsider a work environment in comparison. Employees are typically housed within one building, one floor, or even open office space together. You tend to learn about each others lives and make friends although some might not be your "first choice" if you were selecting friends outside of work. Because of space and interaction, bonds are eventually formed.
For housing, much of the interaction happens outside in the open air, or public spaces. What if today's designers and architects learned from Marcel Breuer House in the Gardens for MoMA and planned for more functional outdoor spaces for each house? Breuer cleverly and specifically designed a "service yard" divided from the "courtyard" at the entrance by a louvered screen. The outdoor living space also included a "play yard" situated just outside of the playroom with a direct view from the kitchen to the playroom and out to the playyard. Although the house has a compact square footage, the front and the back greenspaces were properly planned to extend functional living space outdoors. This is a great concept, and would promote social interaction and neighborliness.
Inside the home, Breuer maximized function without wasting space. This prototype house was built on one acre and designed for the average American family at the time, with flexibility to grow by adding a second floor.
Unlike the current myth of building large multi-story rooms to achieve spaciousness, smaller homes, designed cleverly can be very aesthetically-pleasing and functional if designed with those aspects in mind.
erika. very well said. everything suggests for us to retreat and hibernate within our excessively large homes. the line that housing "a form of being exclusive and not inclusive" was great. and today's outdoor space has shifted drastically to the private backyard...as the garages take up much valuable community and public space of the front yard. further emphasizing the seclusion. to be social, we now are proud and active members of social media online...a quite different kind of social satisfaction and sense of community no?
DeleteCorbusier stated that "everyone rightly dreams of the safety and security of a home of his own" (Corbusier, 262). I agree with that statement, but doesn't part of that safety and security come from knowing who your neighbors are and knowing who you pass each morning on your way to work? The idea of a home has changed from being a place to retreat to in order to relax and spend time with family, to family members retreating to their own spaces the second they get home and spend their time watching tv, playing video games and "hanging out with friends" via social network sites, alone. Part of that stems from our society and high dependence on technology, but I think the built environment has perpetuated this cycle. The larger homes of today make it easy to spend time alone to the point where people may begin to prefer to be alone, or think it's "normal" to spend a majority of your day alone. I'm not denying the fact that people do need some time to themselves, but it's not physically, mentally or emotionally healthy to live a majority of life closed off. During Nuetra's observations of the family unit, he noted that "their social life naturally extends beyond the group" and that dwellings have seen a "necessary shrinkage of interior living" with the increased dependence on what lies outside the home (Nuetra, 31). This thought process leads to the idea of a community setting where neighbors know each other and see each other fairly often. I don't understand why this trend has gone in the complete opposite direction. Corbusier stated that "we must work against the old house that misused space" (Corbusier, 266), but I think people still crave the status of having the biggest home in the neighborhood, and all that square footage creates little urge to head outside.
ReplyDeletei think this conversation did a great job examining the ideals of designers of the past and thinking about how size and the exclusion of the exterior space/neighbors/community has increased this lack of socialization. we also talked about how technology has perpetuated this along with the vast sizes of the home...allowing everyone ot have their own tv, their space to watch their own shows, a laptop, a room for video games, etc. NOBODY has to share, compromise, spend time together, discuss, and socialize within the family unit, let alone with the neighbor. There is an interesting dichotomy here though that we do not follow the trend of the smaller, more spatially efficient, compact, but resourceful technological tools that we value and "praise" on a daily basis. this of course we know is wrapped around the complex process of banks funding developments that are proven as success and developers and home builders sticking to what they know and what the market analysts are telling them will sell despite the fractured method of analysis. what it will take is some innovation amongst all parties and a certain "leap of faith" to make these changes that i think would be welcomed by the majority.
ReplyDeletein conclusion, think about all the generations and models of ipods that have developed since 2000. there was the original, the nano, the shuffle, the touch...and each model has multiple generations of itself to become the best designed, most efficient, user friendly, product it could be. and we are eager to buy it...only our houses have remained stagnant and stuck in the same processes as those defined 60 years ago. i realize the risk of study and prototyping, testing, and post occupancy evaluations of a home is a much riskier thing to do than the small, and less expensive ipod...but it has to begin somewhere. and the ipod also only suggests that design and the interface between user and product, is HIGHLY valued by society...so why can't homes be as well? one that increases the interface between user and user...and user and space through valuable design intentions stated by those who tried to make revolutionary changes in a post-war era...a time when the united states was looking for alternatives and optimism. today, we are facing one of the biggest housing crisis of our nation's history and looking for ways to understand and define our shifting values of society. what better time to begin searching for the answer to THE HOUSE OF THE 21ST CENTURY.