"the domino prototype... has haunted architectural imagination ever since"
- deyan sudjic
- deyan sudjic
hmm. very vague now. dunno how to "ask the correct question" to tackle this academic mess.
there is a basic assumption underlying this dissertation. that is, mass produced single family houses in singapore follows a basic nLKD (n living rooms, kitchen, dining) hierachy. it has greater impacts on psf pricing rather than addressing the live in conditions of the occupants.
basically i am questioning the historical consequence of the tradition of single family house. why in plan, the 21st century house is ideologically exact to the 18th century tudor house.
uma and prof heng cited that due to customs, family traditions and makeups, societal wants and needs, the mass produced single family house will not change. khengsoon haven meet me, but i hugely suspect he is gg to berate me on the vagueness of tot.
anyways, my point of contention is, there is huge possibilities for a niche housing/house. current types of SOHO, studio apartments, white flats fall short. i am steering clear of populist and utopian visions (or technocratic pessimist ones) and grinding into the facts.
a house. the generic type. is now reduced into a symbol, a harking back to the 18th century bourgeosie domestic fantasy which can never be attained. the family, work, societal, technological, consumer spaces dominating a house has greatly altered the architectural one. so much so there are inherent tensions trying to live out the ideology within the concretised walls of the floor plans.
here, i am not trying to provide an ideology free dream house. i am trying to find facts to address the fact that new ideas should in fact guide house design better rather than a continual pessimistic tone to the usual Death of Public Space, Death of the Workplace, Fall of the Public Man, the Uncanny Home, the Island/Matrix/I Robot/1984 technocratic domination literature. eg families are not torn apart by internet, but indeed more connected. poor stereotyping of children and elderly. workplaces become more homely more so than homes become looking more like offices. family roles after the end of Patriarchism. consumerist furniture and interior design that puts architecture into the pale, etc.
neither is this a corbusien/archigram styled alternative manfesto for society wide implementation. i am trying to compartmentalise the dissertation into the design of A HOUSE.
a house, that hopefully addresses the real needs of pple who desire to live a certain way customisable within another hypothetical framework rather than the current paradigm.
can you guys ask me the correct question?
there is a basic assumption underlying this dissertation. that is, mass produced single family houses in singapore follows a basic nLKD (n living rooms, kitchen, dining) hierachy. it has greater impacts on psf pricing rather than addressing the live in conditions of the occupants.
basically i am questioning the historical consequence of the tradition of single family house. why in plan, the 21st century house is ideologically exact to the 18th century tudor house.
uma and prof heng cited that due to customs, family traditions and makeups, societal wants and needs, the mass produced single family house will not change. khengsoon haven meet me, but i hugely suspect he is gg to berate me on the vagueness of tot.
anyways, my point of contention is, there is huge possibilities for a niche housing/house. current types of SOHO, studio apartments, white flats fall short. i am steering clear of populist and utopian visions (or technocratic pessimist ones) and grinding into the facts.
a house. the generic type. is now reduced into a symbol, a harking back to the 18th century bourgeosie domestic fantasy which can never be attained. the family, work, societal, technological, consumer spaces dominating a house has greatly altered the architectural one. so much so there are inherent tensions trying to live out the ideology within the concretised walls of the floor plans.
here, i am not trying to provide an ideology free dream house. i am trying to find facts to address the fact that new ideas should in fact guide house design better rather than a continual pessimistic tone to the usual Death of Public Space, Death of the Workplace, Fall of the Public Man, the Uncanny Home, the Island/Matrix/I Robot/1984 technocratic domination literature. eg families are not torn apart by internet, but indeed more connected. poor stereotyping of children and elderly. workplaces become more homely more so than homes become looking more like offices. family roles after the end of Patriarchism. consumerist furniture and interior design that puts architecture into the pale, etc.
neither is this a corbusien/archigram styled alternative manfesto for society wide implementation. i am trying to compartmentalise the dissertation into the design of A HOUSE.
a house, that hopefully addresses the real needs of pple who desire to live a certain way customisable within another hypothetical framework rather than the current paradigm.
can you guys ask me the correct question?
2 comments:
i guess ure trying to do a get down to basics and do away with the fluffy theories kind of thing? but that would probably come under how you would want to answer the question rather than what constitutes the question... at the end of the day, i think the question before the question is still which 'niche' are you looking at?
haha sort of. i guess the definition of the niche users is darn important. like looking at the wants and needs of a single nuclear family (and almost specifically, wat demographic [ie, kids age, no of kids, no of years married, etc]} hmm... i may be wrong, but i see this typology of housing constituting the single most influential to shaping the housing landscape in spore. followed closely by housing for the silver generation.
hmm. in the course of contemplating issues it is inevitable that certain things u realise are being held back by current regulations, real world issues and concerns. i guess need to persevere harder to form up ur stand bah. i realise that in writing the Abstract or Background of the dissert u must trace ur tots and doubts explicitly to lead the reader to understand ur stand in the first place. and it is not a mere introduction. the Abstract IS the dissertation more than anything else.
meanwhile, looking forward to reading more dissert stuff and updates, queries for info, anything of the likes from peeps like james, urself, shups, honkit, wuks, etc. lots of interesting ideas being floated around.
Post a Comment