Re-introduction of White Flat?

28 May 2024

i recalled this so-called "White Flat" was piloted in Punggol in 2000, but the initiative was unsuccessful then, so it was scrapped... if this idea was piloted before, how is this considered a 'pilot' again? but "White Flat" concept makes more sense now, as many crazy young couples like to tear down the internal walls of their BTO, something i'm sure they will regret years later. Response to: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/open-concept-hdb-flats-without-partitions-or-beams-to-be-piloted-in-kallang-whampoa-bto-project

Labels: , , , , ,

Re-introduction of White Flat?   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Can a city be planned and built scientifically?

29 April 2020

Title
Can a city be planned and built scientifically?

Abstract
Urban planning is a multi-disciplinary, progressive and utopian concept. Over the decades, several planning theories, principles and models were conceptualized by various creators from diverse background. Subsequently, these planning concepts were experimented and implemented (wholly or partially) around the world to varying degree of success.

This paper will examine whether a city can be planned and built scientifically according to various planning models conceptualized. Furthermore, if a planning concept is successfully implemented in a city, can the same concept be duplicated in another city?

What is Urban Planning?
There is no standard definition for urban planning. In modern context, urban planning can be defined as a multi-disciplinary, creative, geopolitical process that encompasses land use planning, architecture, economic development, social engineering, etc. The purpose of urban planning is to evaluate, design and organize proposed land uses and buildings into logical spatial arrangement to maximize land efficiency. Planners also aspire to create a new social order to assert control over the population and economy.

Historically, cities of ancient civilizations were planned, evident in the city wall and grid pattern. Modern urban planning originated at Europe in the late 19th Century. The successful industrialization of Manchester and rejuvenation of Paris fuelled the urbanization and spatial transformation of cities across Europe. However, the first comprehensive planning projects were experimented in colonies before implementation in Europe. (Rainbow, 1989) The invention of skyscrapers expedited the development of high-rise, high-density urban settlements.

Who are the Urban Planners?
Planning is such a diverse and ambiguous discipline that many “experts” tried to define through scientific methodologies. With the exception of Architects Camillo Sitte (“City Planning Accordingly to Artistic Principles”) , Le Corbusier (Radiant City) and Frank Lloyd Wright (Broadacre City), it is interesting to note that many inventors of revolutionary and influential planning theories are not academically or professionally trained in urban planning, urban design, architecture or geography.

For example, Ebenezer Howards, who invented the “Garden City” concept, ended his formal education at 14-years-old and was not trained in architecture or urban design. (Fishman, The Ideal City Made Practicable, 1982) Christopher Alexander, who invented the “Pattern Language” and co-authored the highly influential “A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction” was a mathematician before crossing over to architecture.

In addition, many bureaucrats and supporters who advocated, critiqued or implemented planning projects were also not trained in planning. Baron Haussmann, the Prefect of Seine who engineered the urban renewal of Paris studied law; Robert Moses, the “Master Builder of New York City”, studied political science. Similarly, opposer like Jane Jacobs was a journalist without training in spatially-related fields.

Since these planners were not trained in spatial discipline, it raise questions on the credibility and validity of the concepts proposed and implemented by them. While urban planning is a multi-disciplinary practice, it is still ironic if most of the fundamental concepts were not developed by professionals trained in relevant field. Nevertheless, these planners share a common goal: to invent a perfect urban planning model to guide the creation of an ideal city.

The Science of Urban Planning
Several major cities around the world are entirely planned and built from scratch; examples includes Singapore (1819), Sapporo (1869), Canberra (1913) and Brasilia (1960). In addition, many cities like Berlin, Hiroshima and Seoul were destroyed by wars or natural disasters in the 20th Century and were rejuvenated using scientific and systematic approaches.

Ebenezer Howard invented the “Garden City” concept in 1898, which is a compilation of existing ideas created to resolve assorted problems caused by capitalism and urbanization. Howard managed to see the connection between these ideas, adapted and compiled them into a coherent design. The “Garden City” aims to re-construct a new social-economic environment through decentralisation of cities, cooperation and re-distribution of wealth and power. (Fishman, Inventing the Garden City, 1982) Land is collectively owned and part of the rental income are deposited into a sinking fund for investment, maintenance and provision of services. (Fishman, Design for Cooperation, 1982)

The “Garden City” is a tightly-organized, self-contained, low-density development where 30,000 dwellers live in the urban core. The “Garden City” is surrounded by farms or forest, where 2,000 farmers would supply food to the urban core and constitute an integral part of the cooperative economy. The countryside also doubles as green spaces for leisure and prevents urban sprawling. If the population grows, the existing “Garden City” shall not be expanded or intensified for the system to work. Instead, a new sister “Garden City” could be developed beyond the green buffer. Eventually, 6 “Garden Cities” would cluster around a main city to form a “Social City” network. (Fishman, Design for Cooperation, 1982)

The “Garden City” concept is a simple and functional idea that can be easily applied. Howard founded Letchworth in 1903, the first New Town constructed based on the “Garden City” concept. The “Garden City” was eventually adapted into various decentralization concepts by planners worldwide. (Fishman, The Ideal City Made Practicable, 1982)

Modernist urban planning is generally a top-down process. Bureaucrats would identified urban issues and planners are tasked to conceptualize a plan to resolve these problems. Such process were criticized by planners, intellectuals and activists to be problematic and insensitive, because solutions were designed based on projected efficiency and profits, without taking into consideration environmental impact, social diversity, feedback, everyday life and memories of residents. This approach eventually leads to the failure of “big planning” projects. Therefore, Susan Fainstein, Oscar Newman and Paul Davidoff proposed new planning theories to counter these issues. These models focus on different planning process, perspectives and emphasis; each producing varied outcomes, with its pros and cons.

The “Communication Model” juxtaposed top-down planning by using pragmatism and communicative rationality. Planners need to listen and mediate among stakeholders to reach consensus on differing viewpoints for a project. While this is ideal, the “Communication Model” is unrealistic, inefficient and time-consuming to obtain 100% consensus. This method results in biases, Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, domination by powerful grassroots and placing of unwanted facilities near community with weaker voice. (Fainstein, 2000)

“New Urbanism” is a neo-traditionalism design-oriented model that aims to use urban design to create an array of mixed-use buildings, housing typologies for different demographic groups and public spaces to construct a diverse and cohesive community. The basic planning unit is the neighbourhood, which has a defined boundary and focal centre where residents could access essential amenities within walking distance. “New Urbanism” believes that improvement in physical environment will enhance spatial relationship between living and working spaces. However, “New Urbanism” is market-driven and needs to rely on private developers to build and finance the projects. This often result in destroyed and displaced community, homogeneous development and ‘forced conformity’ among the people. These contradicts the emphasis on community, creativity and diversity. (Fainstein, 2000)

A “Just City” aims to resolve social inequality caused by capitalism through participation in decision-making and advocates for the needs and wants of the community. Planners need to identify a purpose and fight to achieve the spatial goal. However, the “Just City” is unpopular in developed cities as it ignores the interests of the middle-class majority and certain minority groups. Furthermore, the dismissal of economic importance makes the “Just City” model only suitable for cities with a mature economy. (Fainstein, 2000)

The “Defensible Space” concept deploys architectural design, spatial planning and behavioural psychology to create a safer environment that enables casual and continuous surveillance of the public spaces by residents. Planners of “Advocacy Planning” advocates an idea and opines that planning should be more pluralistic and democratic, with stronger participation from individuals, communities and interest groups. (Davidoff, 1965)

Planned City: A Study of Singapore
Singapore was a planned settlement, with the first town plan drawn in 1822. A Master Plan needs to have legislative power for effective implementation and regulation. However, early plans were merely records of existing developments, without anticipating problems and proposed plans proactively. (Dale, 1999) Urban planning only starts to take off after Singapore obtained self-governance in 1959 and Singapore was successfully urbanized and transformed within 30 years.

To a huge extent, Singapore is planned using a top-down approach based on ideas extracted from various planning principles. Ideas from the “Garden City” are echoed in the Koenigsberger Ring City Plan, New Town developments and Constellation Plan. The “New Urbanism” vision to promote social mixing of different racial, cultural and income groups was achieved by building public housing flats of various typologies next to each other.

Singapore’s success in urban planning is mainly due to the consolidation of power and the government owning majority of the land. The government is able to delegate its land, finance and power to certain ministries and statutory boards to plan, implement and regulate urban planning projects quickly, efficiently and effectively. (Dale, 1999) Such bureaucratic approach empowered the Housing & Development Board (HDB), Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) to be master developers for public housing, urban renewal and industrial developments respectively and avoided the challenges faced by the “Communication Model” and “New Urbanism”.

Singapore developed a ring of New Towns around the Central Water Catchment. Each town is self-contained and comprises several neighbourhoods organized around a town centre. The provision of shops, hawker stalls and factories within the town allow resettled farmers and entrepreneurs to operate small business, provide services and employment opportunities for the community. Such initiatives were envisioned, but not implemented during Howard’s time.

Initially, New Towns were planned based on the neighbourhood principle, where approximately 100 blocks of flats are built within walking distance to a neighbourhood centre. In 1980s, HDB modified this principle by inventing the precinct as the smallest planning unit. A neighbourhood is de-cluster into several precincts; each containing about 10 blocks of flats planned around a precinct centre where essential shops and amenities are located. The precinct reduced distance to amenities, encourage closer social interaction, foster stronger sense of belonging and improve spatial identity. The layout of precinct, setup of Neighbourhood Police Posts and Community Watch initiative construct a “Defensible Space” that deters crime. The precinct concept was successfully piloted at Tampines in 1982 and was subsequently applied to other New Towns. These adaptation and improvement of the “Garden City” idea was in line with Howard’s vision for his invention to be capable of great improvement.

Similar to “Garden City”, Town Councils were formed to manage and maintain the common areas of New Towns. A Town Council is led by politicians and appointed councillors (who are residents), and run by a team of professionals for ground operations. Town Councils are primarily funded by Service and Conservancy Charges collected from residents. (Dale, 1999)

The New Towns are connected to the City Centre by a comprehensive transport network. Decentralization was proposed in the Concept Plan 1991, which mapped out a constellation of Regional Centres, Sub-Regional Centres and Fringe Centres radiating out from the City Centre. Each decentralized centre serves several neighbouring towns and reduces commuting by providing more amenities and alternative job opportunities closer to homes.

Tampines New Town won the World Habitat Award in 1992, a testament on the success of Singapore’s public housing and innovative urban transformation efforts. Singapore’s success in urban planning inspires several cities to rejuvenate based on the “Singapore Model”. While Suzhou Industrial Park, Tianjin Eco-City and Colombo Beira Lake District resembles Singapore physically, it needs time to evaluate whether the customized “Singapore Model” is successful in other aspects.

Problems of Urban Planning Concepts and Models
Scientific problems are controlled and hypothesis can be tested and proven. In contrast, planning challenges are “wicked problems” that cannot be clearly defined and there are no right or wrong solutions. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Planning problems are inter-related and decisions might have consequences on other issues. (Dale, 1999)

An urban analysis is never comprehensive, because information was researched based on problems identified by the planner. It is difficult to design a development that would resolve future problems that could not be predicted accurately. Furthermore, every site is unique and the same solution might be incompatible for similar problems. (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

A solution can be classified by different parties as good and bad simultaneously. A planning decision may benefit the majority, but affects some in the name of public good. Big planning also proved to be impossible without loss of liberty and equity. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) For example, urban renewal, land acquisition and resettlement were essential for Singapore, but was disruptive to the resettled villagers, as they could no longer stay at their kampong and farm to be self-sufficient. They need to adapt to urban life and work in unfamiliar jobs to finance HDB mortgages. Fast-forward a few decades, it is interesting to note that most Singaporeans wants their flats to be selected for Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme, which is a form of resettlement with lucrative benefits.

Planning is fuelled by capitalism and efficiency, which is to use minimum land to achieve maximum development potential. Efficiency can be quantified by Gross Plot Ratio, population density and land utilization rate etc. While capitalism has merits in promoting pragmatism and desire for improvement, capitalism is also the root cause of social inequality, unhealthy competition, consumerism, wastage, environmental damages, poor physical and mental health etc. Decision-makers should not approved projects solely from an economic perspective, else residents will be deprived of non-profit-generating amenities near homes and direct bus routes to town centre will be removed. The government could subsidize private operators to ensure services will still be provided for the convenience of the community. In fact, it is controversial to privatize essential service providers, because their main objective would switch to profit-making after privatization.

As the economy and society mature, it is necessary for planning strategies to evolve accordingly. (Dale, 1999) Since 2000, there is a gradual shift towards collaborative planning and participatory design. Planners would organize community workshops, walking conversations and pop-up engagements to gather feedback. While such shift is ideal, planners needs to filter NIMBY noises from feedback and be firm with the initial planning objectives when necessary. To discourage NIMBY, planners could encourage protesters to submit a counter-proposal for consideration. Planners should evaluate alternatives, manage powerful voices and balance feedback objectively in the general interests of the community.

Policy-makers attempt to improve effectiveness by inventing unnecessary systems, which complicates the problem and does not necessarily produced better solutions. Agencies either operate in silo, has overlapping functions, (Dale, 1999) or create ‘grey area problems’ not within anyone’s purview. Consolidating planning into the same organization might not lead to greater efficiency, as departments might have conflicting objectives or lack internal coordination. (Dale, 1999) These necessitate coordination to resolve issues that may not be complicated. Policy-makers might lose touch with the ground and advocate “white elephant” projects that residents do not need or want. Nevertheless, the public will always complain that planners did not solve problems that planners claimed they could solve.

Planning is never perfect, as there are alternative ways to parcellate a site (with accompanying opportunity costs). Furthermore, it is impossible to experiment a land use plan without building it. However, there is no threshold for trial & error, because solutions implemented are usually irreversible and could have severe consequences. Plus, measurement of success and impact is never immediate. (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Planners must note that the view of society changes in response to time, economic development and social diversity. Hence, what was right in the past might be contentious now or in the future.

The Art & Science of Urban Planning
Urban planning is an art and science on balancing: planners need to achieve equilibrium in land use, social needs, economic needs, efficiency, feedback and aesthetics to construct an ideal city. Ideally, the planning process should start with site visits and detailed analysis to understand the existing on-site conditions and identify gaps. This is necessary for conceptualizing functional planning proposals that address gaps.

A city can be planned and built scientifically using a hybrid of planning theories, principles and models. Planning theories are not mutually exclusive; (Fainstein, 2000) most cities are planned using a hybrid of planning models that are customized to fit local context. The strategy is to adopt the pros of a model and replace the cons with the pros of another model. If a planning concept is successfully implemented in a city, the same concept can be duplicated in another city, but it must be customized to suits the different on-site situations and local needs.


References
1. Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review, 451-478.

2. Fishman, R. (1982). The Ideal City Made Practicable. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 23-26). Cambridge: MIT Press.

3. Fishman, R. (1982). Inventing the Garden City. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 27-39). Cambridge: MIT Press.

4. Fishman, R. (1982). Design for Cooperation. In Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier (pp. 40-51). Cambridge: MIT Press.

5. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

6. Dale, O. J. (1999). The Government as Planner and Entrepreneur. In Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City (pp. 71-115). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

7. Rainbow, P. (1989). Governing Morocco: modernity and difference. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, 32-46.

8. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 331-338.

[This is my Final Paper submitted for "DEP5102 Introduction to History & Theory of Urban Planning" module on 29 April 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "DEP5102 Introduction to History & Theory of Urban Planning" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) Master of Urban Planning (MUP) and is taught by Prof Lee Kah-Wee.]

Labels: , ,

Can a city be planned and built scientifically?   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Seike Kiyoshi’s “My House”: Integration of interior and exterior to create practical space in a small house

11 April 2020

Title
Seike Kiyoshi’s “My House”: Integration of interior and exterior to create practical space in a small house.

Abstract
“My House” (私の家) is the personal residence of renowned and highly-decorated architect Seike Kiyoshi (清家 清) (13 December 1918 – 8 April 2005) that was designed and built by himself.[1] Completed in October 1954, “My House” is a 10m by 5m house constructed on the 182m² site of Seike’s parents’ house at 3–519 Higashiyukigaya, Ota Ward, Tokyo Metropolis.[3, 4, 6, 7]


[Location of “My House”.]

Despite its small building footprint of 50m²,[1, 4, 7] “My House” is Japan’s first modern 1-room house that is known for its functionality, openness, spaciousness and innovation.[29] “My House” also reflects Seike’s beliefs in gender equality; demonstrated elements of “Japan-ness” and “inversion”; and customized to fit the liberal lifestyle of his young family.[1]

This paper examines how Seike was inspired by elements of traditional Japanese house and used modern materials and construction methods to create a small but functional house that successfully integrates the exterior and interior into a continuous and spacious entity.


[“My House” successfully integrates the exterior and interior into a continuous and spacious entity.[1]]

Background: About the Architect / Owner
Seike graduated from the Tokyo University of the Arts and Tokyo Institute of Technology.[16] Seike was an apprentice of modernist architect Yoshiro Taniguchi.[15] Seike founded the Seike Research Institute within Tokyo Institute of Technology and he was a Professor at Tokyo Institute of Technology,[29] Tokyo University of the Arts and Tama Art University.[16] Seike is a recipient of the “Order of the Sacred Treasure” (1989), “Medal with Purple Ribbon” (1983), “Order of Culture” (1955), “Architectural Institute of Japan Grand Prize” (1991), “Architectural Institute of Japan Prize” (1954).[16] Some of his notable works include “House of Mori Oto” (1951), “House of Prof Sato” (1952), “My House” (1954), “Kyushu Institute of Technology Memorial Hall” (1960), “Yokohama Hakkeijima Sea Paradise” (1993), “Sapporo School of the Arts” (1995).[16] His apprentices include Shinohara Kazuo,[15] Hayashi Shouji, Hayashi Masako and Banjoya Gyoji.[16]

Seike believes in “Nothing can be something” and “Less is More”.[2] He believes that designing a house is similar to sculpting, which unnecessary elements are removed through the process.[2]

Furthermore, Seike opines that Japan is not a conducive place to live due to frequent seismic activities and extreme climate like heavy snowfall at Hokkaido, Tohoku and Hokuriku regions in winter, rainy spring, hot and humid summer and strong typhoons in autumn.[2, 9] Therefore, he thinks that Japanese houses must have strong structural supports and needs to be constructed using a variety of special techniques and methods to withstand such difficult climate and natural disasters.[2]

Background: Historical Context
“My House” was completed shortly after the Allied Occupation of Japan, which ended in 1952. This was the transitional time when Japanese pursued everyday life amid huge social, economic and environmental changes.

The occupation revolutionized the social and family values in Japan. Traditionally, construction of Japanese houses was centred around the extended family system, which was dissolved during the occupation.[2] Japanese started to aspire the standard American couple and nuclear family as role model for their everyday life.[5] Japanese also began to view the married couple as a mutually united and equal entity.[1, 5] Rapid urbanization and the break-up of the extended family resulted in mass country-to-city migration.[2, 9] In addition, women started to have rights to vote in 1945 and laws promoting gender equality were enacted in 1947.[5]

The Japan Economic Miracle characterized by rapid economic growth was in full bloom in the 1950s. This leads to an increase of per Capita Gross Domestic Product by an average of 7.1% per annum from 1945 to 1956 and growth of the Middle-Class.[2, 17] World War II contributed to a shortage of materials, which affected construction projects in the post-war period.[14, 18] This period is also plagued by severe pollution, notably the 1956 Minamata Disease, which was caused by methylmercury in industrial wastewater.[19, 20] Inflation, lack of construction materials and mass urban migration leads to severe housing shortage and expensive land prices in the cities.[1]

Despite extensive macro-level changes and foreign influences on everyday life, Seike feels that the design of Japanese houses remained very conservative and only began to change after 1947.[2] Seike believes that the modern Japanese house must suit the purpose for which it was built and cater to the different lifestyle, habits, tastes, needs and wants of its residents.[2]

Background: About “My House”
Seike originally designed and built “My House” for his parents, but they declined to move in.[1] Therefore, 36-years-old Seike moved into “My House” with his wife, 7-years-old eldest daughter Yuri and 6-months-old son Atsushi.[7]

“My House” is an unexpectedly small and modest house for a famous architect.[4] Nevertheless, “My House” was huge during the time of construction, when the average house has a building footprint area of only 15m².[7] “My House” was built to the maximum allowable building area of 50m² for it to be eligible for the Japan Housing Finance Agency loan, as enacted by the 1947 Temporary Ordinance.[1] In addition to the ground floor area of 50m², “My House” includes a 20m² basement.[4, 7] The basement was designed as a study, but was subsequently converted into a children play area.[5]

As his family grew, Seike expanded “My House” by adding “My House II” (続・私の家) in 1970 and “Son’s House” (倅の家) in 1989.[1] “My House” was registered as a Tangible Cultural Property on 27 October 2017.[3] “My House” is currently owned by Yuri.[7]

Converting the Exterior into Interior: Tall Boundary Wall
“My House” is located in a tranquil residential neighbourhood within the heart of downtown Tokyo. The land lot is enclosed by a tall boundary wall of approximately 3m high.


[Tall boundary wall enclosing “My House”.[4]]

Besides being a physical marker demarcating the legal boundary of land ownership, the tall wall also effectively divide the space into public and private domain.[5] The tall wall converts the enclosed outdoor into an ‘internal space’,[1] producing a huge garden that forms an integral part of the house.[9]

The tall wall completely blocks the view of the house and garden from the street.[5, 6] The tall wall provides privacy and allows the family to be ‘open’ within their compound.[5] Ferns and creeper plants growing on the wall reduced the claustrophobic feeling within the compound.[5, 6]

Furthermore, the tall wall protects the house from unexpected changes in the neighbourhood by focusing on the inside.[9]

Integration of Exterior and Interior: Huge Garden
After entering the gate, guests need to walk through a huge garden before reaching the house.[5]

The 132m² garden is disproportionately huge for a small house. The huge garden creates a sense of spaciousness and openness for a small house.[5, 7] Besides being aesthetically beautiful, the huge garden ensures sufficient sunlight, wind and air circulation could reach the interior.[9]

Integration of Exterior and Interior: Absence of Genkan
Another characteristics of “My House” is the absence of a ‘Genkan’ (玄関 / entryway).[1, 4, 7] The genkan is where shoes are removed and stored in a traditional Japanese house.[7] The genkan act as the official front door of the house and is a symbol of the family’s social status.[1] The genkan is where the family receive postage and deliveries, interact with salespersons and host unfamiliar guests.

The absence of a genkan gives an impression of a missing official front door and guest enter directly into the room.[4, 5] This caused ambiguity on whether guest needs to remove shoes before entering “My House” and a blur distinction between the exterior and interior.[5] Nevertheless, guests are required to remove their shoes before entering “My House”.[5]

Since the house and the garden are on the same platform level, the absence of a genkan creates a wide entrance and produces a wide view of the huge garden.[5, 7]

“Nouveau Japan-ness”: Use of Modern Materials
Seike’s previous architectural works before “My House” were all minimal wooded houses constructed with influences of traditional Japanese house and lifestyle.[5, 14, 15] However, the structure, wall and ceiling of “My House” were constructed using Reinforced Concrete (RC).[3, 4, 5, 7] The use of RC and modern construction techniques enable “My House” to withstand fire, earthquake and tough climate,[7] which Seike believed are essential to overcome Japan’s geographical disadvantages.[2]

Seike’s decision to use RC is due to shortage of traditional construction material,[1] progress in the development of chemical building materials and light alloys, resulting in cheaper construction cost.[2] The switch to mechanized construction is also because good workmanship and craftsmen are gradually disappearing.[2]

Nevertheless, Seike still managed to juxtapose tradition and modernity. Although constructed using RC, its incredibility thin frame of approximately 70mm generated a Japan-ness of lightness and an impression of being constructed using wood.[5, 29] The thin structural frame and wall is also due to Seike’s desire to reduce unnecessary wastage of space, which is precious in a small house.[7, 14]

Boundary between Exterior and Interior: Stone Flooring
Seike used teppei-seki (鉄平石 / andesite) as flooring for the garden and the interior.[5, 6, 7] This is a huge departure from traditional Japanese houses that used wood or tatami as flooring for the interior. Traditional garden is either earth-floored, turfed, or covered with gravel, which gravel was the same material used to pave urban street then.[5]

Andesite is a type of fine-grained igneous rock that is light or dark grey in colour.[21, 27] Andesite is composed of multiple layers of lava produced by stratovolcanoes that cooled and crystalized quickly.[21, 22, 28] Its geological characteristics makes it easy to split into board-like pieces.[22] Andesite is commonly used as ornamental rock in traditional Japanese garden.[22] However, andesite was seldom used in Japanese architecture. Andesite was only used as roofing material for teppei-seki-yane minka in Suwa (Nagano Prefecture) since 1811, as there are abundant andesite at Suwa.[22, 23, 27, 28]

Seike might had chosen andesite for its thickness, durability (against pressure, fire and weather), flexibility (can be used for flooring, roofing and ornament), ease of cutting and texture.[25, 26, 27, 28] Furthermore, andesite was used to pave the Omotesando (sacred boulevard) leading to Meiji-jingu in 1920.[28] Cobblestones made from andesite were commonly used to pave urban street overseas. Therefore, Seike might had anticipated that the gravel-paved urban street might be re-paved with andesite; hence he might chose to pave the garden with andesite to match the street.

Interestingly, there is remarkable differences in the size, layout, grain, filling and surface treatment of the andesite laid in the interior and exterior.[5] For example, the andesite laid inside the house are smooth and shiny black with minimal spacing filled with cement; while those laid in the garden are rough and sandy with wide spacing filled with soil.[5] This creates a subtle boundary between the continuous exterior and interior spaces.


[Differences in size, layout, grain, filling and surface treatment of andesite laid in the interior (left) and exterior (right).[5, 7]]

The rough andesite outdoor might be inspired from the kutsunugi-ishi (shoe-removing stone), a stone placed to assist guests to remove shoes and step up from the earthen courtyard into the raised interior.[8] The kutsunugi-ishi served as a symbolic reminder of the indoor-outdoor boundary.[8]

Seike originally adopted an American lifestyle of wearing shoes into the interior.[1, 5, 6] Seike opined that wearing shoes into the interior would unite the exterior and interior spaces.[24] Wearing of shoes is also convenient when switching between the spaces. This justified the absence of a genkan, the use of stone as flooring material for the interior and sleeping on bed instead of futon.[6]

However after 1957, Seike revert to remove shoes at the wide entrance because the seamless connection between the interior and exterior have encouraged his children to be constantly barefoot.[5] Furthermore, andesite feels cool during summer,[5] but warm in winter.[6] Seike’s children love the temperature of the stone flooring and enjoyed lying on the cool Andesite during summer.[5] His family also feel more relaxed being barefoot in the house.[5]

Boundary between Exterior and Interior: Glass Sliding Door
The use of glass is a modern technology that started in the Meiji era. A glass sliding door is a modern interpretation of the ‘Shoji’ (障子 / screen), which was used to define spaces.[1, 9] Thus, the glass sliding door demarcated the boundary of the garden (exterior) and the house (interior).[5]

Interestingly, the original sliding door that was installed in 1954 is still movable and remains in use till today.[5] This might be due to Seike’s insistence on good workmanship and shortage of construction material in the 1950s;[2] as if things were made to last, it eliminated the need for replacement, which requires material and produced unnecessary wastage.

Functionality and Flexibility: 1-room house
“My House” is a flexible 1-room house that is not partitioned accordingly to functions.[4, 5] The interior is continuous, without any doors or division into living, dining, bed, study or play rooms.[1, 4, 5, 6, 7] However, the space can still be divided using curtains hanging from steel truss or enormous furniture and fittings, like the full-height built-in bookshelf that spanned the entire length of the ‘living room’.[1, 4, 6, 29] This flexible layout is the most practical solution for a small house.[5] Although labelled as an 1-room house, separate spaces were still created for functions that are deemed ‘unclean’ – the kitchen and toilet.

While this concept is unprecedented in contemporary modern houses, such convertible style of living is a traditional Japanese concept that has been adopted since the Heian era.[7] This concept reduced unnecessary wastage of space by eliminating walls and separators.[7] Space can be easily enlarged or reduced accordingly by shifting the divider.[5] The flexibility maximized space efficiency for each function at any time, as spaces are no longer ‘reserved’ for functions that are not performed throughout the day.[7] The functions and furniture are change according to time, seasons and needs.[7] This physical transformation reflects the passing of time,[1, 7] amplifying the concepts of wabi-sabi.[1]


[Curtains and furniture are used to partition the interior of “My House”.[1]]

Integration of Exterior and Interior
As the house is small, there might not be enough space indoor for the family.[5] The wide entrance allows the room to extend organically into the garden.[1, 4, 5, 6, 7] The lines created from the asymmetrical temporal partition indoor are extended to the garden,[1] which is visualized through the distinction between the andesite-paved, turfed and planted areas. This connection is enhanced by the use of same flooring material indoor and outdoor. Together, these highlighted the spatial integration, flow and relationship between the interior and exterior.[1]

When the glass sliding door is open, the huge garden function as a seamless extension of the room. The indoor-outdoor permeability creates a spacious and continuous space where the family may use the garden for activities that are typically done in the living and dining room during warmer days.[1, 5, 7]


[When the glass sliding door is open, the interior is seamlessly connected with the garden.[7]]

The seamless connection is similar to the nijiriguchi entrance of a traditional teahouse.[8] This covered earthen terrace serve as a bridging space to extend the teahouse into the garden and prepare guests to enter directly into the tatami interior.[8] The garden resembles the doma (土間),[6] the enclosed earthen-floored buffer after the entrance of a minka (民家 / traditional house of farmers).[1] The doma is a multi-purpose space where shoes were removed and cooking, work or messy chores were carried out.[1, 10] The difference is, while the doma is an important and integral part of the minka, it is considered an unclean space and never used for gathering and dining.[1]

Traditionally, tatami is only used as flooring for the raised interior and requires delicate care to prevent damages. Seike created a movable raised tatami on rollers that can be shifted easily between the interior and the garden.[1, 5] The movable raised tatami could be used as a cot for baby,[1] play area for children, reading, relaxing and sleeping.[5, 7] The movable raised tatami is a fusion of Japanese tradition of floor-sitting and Western modern chair-sitting lifestyles.[1]

The green wall, huge garden and seamless connection with nature creates an abstract nature and a concept of unity between the exterior and interior of the house.[5, 29] The integration of the garden (exterior) and the house (interior) arises from a desire to live with nature and the spiritual connection between nature and man.[1, 9]

However, architecture will always separate the interior and exterior.[1] Furthermore, Seike’s interior-exterior integration contrast vastly with traditional Japanese architecture, where abrupt transition between the indoor and outdoor were avoided, with spaces such as the genkan, doma and engawa designed to bridge the gap.[9] This is similar to western houses, which defined the interior and exterior clearly.[1] As mentioned, Seike believes that a house should exclude unnecessary elements.[2] This is especially essential when he is restricted by limited building area and shortage of construction materials. Seike viewed the genkan and other transitional space as unnecessary, hence were omitted for “My House”.[7]

Openness
Seike’s family is centred around unity, gender equality and democracy.[7] Nothing in the house imposes hierarchical relationship among family members.[1]

The 1-room layout and openness of “My House” is a manifestation of the close and comfortable relationship within Seike’s family. There is effectively no space for anyone to be alone.[5] In fact, for the 1-room house to work, it requires mutual trust and respect between family members and non-interference parenting.[5]

The openness is also practical for Seike and his wife to supervise and look after their children. Furthermore, children who sleep with parents developed a sense of physical and psychological protection.[5] It fostered intimacy between the parents and the children.[5]

Seike opines that Japanese women should no longer be confined to the kitchen.[2] Hence, the kitchen was designed to be very small and fitted with modern appliances.[6] This small kitchen is a symbol of unity and equality between husband and wife.[1, 5]

“My House” is famous for its “toilet without doors”,[1, 4, 6, 7] which further enhanced the concept of gender equality and unity within the family. The toilet excluded bath or shower and the family have to use the bathroom at Seike’s parents’ house. [1] Instead, a bidet, one of the most advanced fittings in the 1950s, was installed.[5]

Influences
Seike successfully piloted the most advanced and innovative ideas, materials, structural design, construction methods and customization at his own house.[5] “My House” is a starting point for Seike to experiment on joinery and prefabrication,[5] which flourished in 1970s.[1]

Although small, “My House” was spacious and customized to suit the lifestyle of Seike’s family. Despite its modernity, Seike is able to inject “Japan-ness” and abstract nature into the small urban house. Notably, Seike successfully integrated the interior and exterior through a mixture of materials, metaphors and methodologies. The interior-exterior integration and elimination of unnecessary elements produced a huge continuous space that the family could use freely for multiple purposes.[1]

Many concepts applied in “My House” would inspired other architects and nuclear families in designing future 1-room houses and apartment flats.[1, 5, 6]

References
1. Shinkenchiku-sha (Ed.). (2017). The Japanese House: Architecture and Life after 1945. Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-sha.

2. Seike, K., & Terry, C. S. (1964). Contemporary Japanese Houses. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

3. 登録有形文化財 (建造物) : 私の家 (清家清自邸). (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/heritage/detail/101/00011885

4. h9w457y8i (2018, February 20). 私の家 (清家清自邸). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from 近代文化遺産見学案内所 : https://bunkaisan.exblog.jp/28149669

5. Mirutake (2005). An Interpretation on ‘My House’ by Seike Kiyoshi. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from Observing the Architecture: http://takekonbu.fc2web.com/2005/36seike/seike2-e.htm

6. Shimizu, R. (2018, June 19). 清家邸に見る住まいの原点. Modern Living. Retrieved February 14, 2020, from http://modernliving.jp/shimizu/shimizu_20180619

7. Tanazashi (2017, August 27). 日曜美術館「小さな家たちの冒険」私の家・清家清 Retrieved February 8, 2020, from チャンスはピンチだ。: https://blog.kenfru.xyz/entry/2017/08/27/日曜美術館「小さな家たちの冒険」私の家・清家清

8. Nakagawa, T. (2005). The Japanese House: In Space, Memory, and Language. Tokyo: International House of Japan.

9. Pollock, N. (2005). Modern Japanese House. London: Phaidon Press Limited.

10. Young, D., & Young, M. (2004). Introduction to Japanese Architecture. Hong Kong: Periplus Asian Architecture.

11. 文化遺産オンライン: 私の家 (清家清自邸) (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/256755/1

12. @t8mono (n.d.). たてものきろく: 私の家 (清家清自邸). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://t8mono.net/bunkazai/11885

13. Housekeeper (2019, October 23). 住み継がれる日本の名作住宅26。その物語をひもとく。. Casa Brutus, Retrieved February 14, 2020, from https://casabrutus.com/architecture/119896/2

14. Fuji, M. (2018, July). The House of Prof. K Saito designed by Kiyoshi Seike. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from Zero Abundance: https://www.interactiongreen.com/the-house-of-prof-k-saito-designed-by-kiyoshi-seike

15. Stewart, D. B. (2015, December). Recognition and Delineation. Werk, Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://www.wbw.ch/en/magazine/reports/original-texts/2015-12-recognition-and-delineation.html

16. 清家清 (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/清家清

17. Okazaki, T. (2015, February 9). Lessons from the Japanese Miracle: Building the Foundations for a New Growth Paradigm. nippon.com, Retrieved from https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a04003/lessons-from-the-japanese-miracle-building-the-foundations-for-a-new-growth-paradigm.html

18. Pernice, R. (2006, November). The Transformation of Tokyo During the 1950s and Early 1960s Projects Between City Planning and Urban Utopia. JAABE, 5(2), 253 - 260. Retrieved from https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jaabe/5/2/5_2_253/_pdf

19. Minamata Disease. (n.d.). Boston University Sustainability, Retrieved from https://www.bu.edu/sustainability/minamata-disease

20. Harada, M. (1995). Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 25(1), Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408449509089885

21. King, H. (n.d.). Andesite. In Geology.com. Retrieved April 8, 2020, from https://geology.com/rocks/andesite.shtml

22. Locher, M. (2012). Traditional Japanese Architecture: An Exploration of Elements and Forms. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing.

23. Itoh, F. (1987, June). 諏訪地方における地域文化の地理学的考察. 新地理, 35(1), 29-40. Retrieved from https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/newgeo1952/35/1/35_1_29/_pdf/-char/ja

24. Seike, K. (1957, March). 私の家/清家清. 新建築, 32(3).

25. 建築 (II) (4th ed.). (2010). Tokyo: 雇用・能力開発機構.

26. OSAKA SEKIZAI. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2020, from https://www.osaka-sekizai.co.jp/architecture/sekisyu/slate

27. 平塚市博物館 (n.d.). 平塚の街でみられる地球の歴史. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from平塚市博物館公式ページ: https://hirahaku.jp/web_yomimono/geomado/sekiz13.html

28. 藤森鉄平石. (n.d.). 鉄平石とは? . Retrieved April 11, 2020, from: http://www.teppei.jp/about/index.htm

29. Kouda, K. (2018, March 25). 戦後最初期モダン住宅の魅力 清家清自邸 . Retrieved April 11, 2020, from RCZ住宅: https://rczhome.info/2018/03/25/戦後最初期モダン住宅の魅力-清家清自邸

[This is my Final Paper submitted for "AR5957G Japanese Houses: Discourses and Works" module on 11 April 2020 for AY2019/2020 Semester 2. "AR5957G Japanese Houses: Discourses and Works" is offered by National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture (DoA) and is taught by Prof Tsuto Sakamoto.]

Labels: , , , ,

Seike Kiyoshi’s “My House”: Integration of interior and exterior to create practical space in a small house   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Japanese Houses Reading Response 4: Made in Tokyo (Introduction, Method) / Kaijima Monoyo, Kuroda Junzo, Tsukamoto Yoshiharu

22 March 2020

Japanese Houses Reading Response 4

Article: Made in Tokyo (Introduction, Method) / Kaijima Monoyo, Kuroda Junzo, Tsukamoto Yoshiharu

Summary
“Made in Tokyo” is a guidebook that features anonymous “da-me (bad) architecture” that integrates unrelated functions within the same structure to create an ambiguous feeling of being “very Tokyo”. “Da-me architecture” are everyday buildings with aspects of “off-ness” when overlapping category, structure and uses; appears chaotic; but creates freedom in integration. These buildings are not beautiful, but are practical and economically efficient as it integrates unusual urban ecology in response to its surrounding and programming needs, instead of adhering to aesthetic, form, culture and history.

Land is expensive in Tokyo, leading to void phobia. Even tiny spaces are filled with appropriate revenue-generating uses such as vending machines and signboards. Cross-categorical integration creates efficiency by removing unnecessary restrictions. For example, transit-oriented developments maximized value of land around transport nodes and ‘regulates’ the mixture of human and traffic spaces. Although chaotic, there is still logic in integrating functions, which are ordered through physical than content, to create a gigantic agglomeration of urban micro eco-systems.

The “da-me architectures” are documented through photos, drawings, maps, nicknames and text. The guidebook is a suitable format to analyse the urban planning of Tokyo, which is constantly re-constructing itself, because a guidebook does not require a conclusion.

Opinion
I agrees that “da-me architecture” like HDB flats defines a city. I had explored Tokyo by different transport modes; each gives a very different view of the “da-me architecture”, thereby constructing a very different impression of Tokyo. In addition, the boundaries of Tokyo’s neighbourhoods are never clearly defined, which leads to various boundaries, which can be confusing.

Urban planning is subjective. Each piece of land can be planned for alternative uses and there is no right or wrong in deciding the use of a site. Developments integrating various functions within the same building is the way forward for land-scarce cities.

Labels: , , ,

Japanese Houses Reading Response 4: Made in Tokyo (Introduction, Method) / Kaijima Monoyo, Kuroda Junzo, Tsukamoto Yoshiharu   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Japanese Houses Reading Response 3: Tarzans in the Media Forest / Toyo Ito

12 March 2020

Japanese Houses Reading Response 3

Article: Tarzans in the Media Forest / Toyo Ito
• What is the Reality of Architecture in a Futuristic City? (1988)
• Dismantling and Reconstituting the ‘House’ in a Disordered City (1988)
• Twenty-First Century Curtains: A Theory of Fluid Architecture (1990)

Summary
Ito’s impression of a city is gained while travelling from the airport to the city centre; as this journey displayed the visual, smell, sound, characteristics and expressions of the city. Ito thinks Tokyo is a city with a labyrinthine interior, but without an exterior.

A city is designed and built based on an architect’s dream of a future city. However, urban spaces transformed repeatedly and could become completely different from the architect’s aspiration, but could still be futuristic. Films successfully visualized the image of invisible urban spaces of a futuristic city. The switch from reality into futuristic image resulted from the transformation of scale, movement, noises, spatial conception and time.

Tokyo is a consumption city and dwellers are increasingly dependent on the city’s amenities and spaces to satisfy their daily needs. Hence, the house is reduced to an idealistic concept, where urban nomads retreat for sleep and privacy.

Urban space is a space for flow of people and various elements. A temporary space ensured freedom. The contrast in urbanism leads to the creation of metaphor, which reduced architecture into its form.

Ito opined his architecture cannot be understood in isolation and architecture is an element forming part of the environment.

Opinion
Everybody remembers cities differently. The impression of a city is derived from experiences and memories.

I disagreed with Ito’s impression on Tokyo. Based on my personal experience travelling from Narita Airport to the 23 wards via the Narita Express, my impression of Tokyo as a huge metropolis reveals slowly as the train travels past the fields of Narita, suburbs of Chiba and the buildings intensifies till Tokyo Skytree becomes visible. This impression remains constant for every trip to Tokyo.

It is true that everything in Tokyo changes rapidly and videos of Odaiba do give an impression of a futuristic city.

Labels: , , ,

Japanese Houses Reading Response 3: Tarzans in the Media Forest / Toyo Ito   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Japanese Houses Reading Response 2: Reflection and Inversion / Hiroshi Hara

02 March 2020

Japanese Houses Reading Response 2

Article: Reflection and Inversion / Hiroshi Hara

Summary
Hiroshi Hara’s recent works are based on the paired concepts of “Reflection” and “Inversion”; quoting “light reflected on interior wall inverts the brightness of the space” as an analogy. Hara opined that “Reflection” is the simpler concept, while “Inversion” is more complex and requires violent manipulation. He achieved reflection with “Reflection House”, which is a successful step towards the realization of inversion.

Hara’s envision architecture to be an expression of apertures. Apertures liven up an enclosed space by controlling flow, communication and reflectivity between exterior and interior spaces. Halation through an aperture confronts the concept of darkness by producing a sudden inversion of brightness. The halation brings light into the interior, which becomes an expression of the outside world; whereby the brighter exterior is reduced to a spatial form of the building. Inversion virtually removed the façade to “expand” the house. This is of social significance because the dense urban fabric ensue no space between houses.

Inversion needs to reverse and replace traditional architectural concepts. An “Inversion House” aims to embed the city inside the home’s interior either through design or cognitively. An “Inversion House” needs to address the issue of a single aperture and air circulation to be liveable.

Opinion
Based on Hara’s definition, the shophouse typology is an “Inversion House”. The shophouse has narrow frontage, but significant depth; apertures like airwell and skylight inject halation and air circulation into the middle of the shophouse. In particular, the airwell inverse the interior into a courtyard functioning like a city square.

Although not a house, Hara succeeded in designing an “inversion arena” – Sapporo Dome. The retractable roof is an aperture that can invert the space. It is the first venue where ski can be competed indoor. The artificial turf and grass pitch can be switched in and out of the stadium.

Labels: , , ,

Japanese Houses Reading Response 2: Reflection and Inversion / Hiroshi Hara   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.

Japanese Houses Reading Response 1: Japanese Taste and its Recent Historical Construction / Isozaki

06 February 2020

Japanese Houses Reading Response 1

Article: Japanese Taste and its Recent Historical Construction / Isozaki

Summary
“Japan-ness” is an external gaze of an insular nation. The Japonisme craze in mid-19th Century Europe influenced artists of the Art Nouveau and Impressionism art movements. Interestingly, objects fascinated in Japonisme are everyday objects that are not considered as art in Japan; producers are also not recognized as skilled craftsmen. Over time, the obsession on “Japan-ness” shifted from material objects to concepts amplifying simplicity and omnipresent emptiness.

“Japan-ness” architecture began in 1920s, coinciding with heightened modernization and nationalism; and featured 2 distinct interpretations and styles. The first group included Kikutaro Shimoda, who used new techniques and materials to construct Japanese-style elements, producing the “teikan-heigo” style. Another group comprised of Bruno Taut and returning Japanese Architects who experienced Japonisme overseas and grasped the notion of “Japan-ness”. They integrated the essence of simplicity in traditional Japanese architecture with principles of modern architecture to create “Japan-ness” through concept rather than visual or material. In addition, there are foreigners like Frank Llyod Wright who misinterpreted “Japan-ness” and created cultural confusion by using weird materials and omitted spatial flatness.

After World War II (WWII), Kenzo Tange successfully integrated modern style with “Japan-ness” at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. However, the debate on “Japan-ess” continues.

Opinion
“Japan-ness” is indeed a concept, rather than material visualization.

Besides the overarching concept of simplicity and emptiness, “Japan-ness” also encompasses the zen concept of wabi-sabi, which embraces the beauty of imperfection and asymmetery. Wabi-sabi is exemplified by Kintsugi, the art of using gold to glue broken ceramics and accentuated the cracks. The Zenkai House would not be considered an architectural showcase without its connotation with Kintsugi.

Japan’s economy skyrocketed after WWII and Japonisme Nouveau conquered the world through fashion, J-pop, electronics etc. Japonisme Nouveau influenced a new generation of artists and architects who are still trying to integrate the concept of “Japan-ness” with modern styles.

Nevertheless, there is striking differences in the works produced by Japanese artists and Japanophilia. Non-Japanese artists seems to have difficulty producing the same type of simplicity without losing the sophistication in meaning and aesthetic.

Labels: , , ,

Japanese Houses Reading Response 1: Japanese Taste and its Recent Historical Construction / Isozaki   © 文彬 2004~2024. All rights reserved.