Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

“Figures, Passages, Doorways” by Robin Evans

Synopsis:
Evans begins his argument with the statement that the common house is not so
common, and that its layout has a profound effect on domestic life. He offers the
work of
Raphael as an analogy for thinking about people and the plan, where the people
in the
paintings became compositionally close, which indicates close relationships. Evan
then
uses the Villa Madama as an example of a classical Italian house, and also as an
example
of what Robert Kerr found horrible. The Italians wanted rooms with many doors
that
acted more like passageways, while Kerr, an Englishman, advocated for the
“terminal
room” with only one door. Where as the Villa Madama could be viewed as a
progression
of space in which company is viewed as the “normal condition,” Kerr is advocating
for more privacy within the home. Evans views this as setting up an interesting
paradox
in which the layout of the home defines human activity, or where the human
activity
defines the plan. Sir Roger Pratt offers a different view, where architecture
provides a
solution for the annoyances of everyday life. Pratt runs along the same lines as
Kerr with
the idea of privacy, but carries it further with the idea of passages that keep the
occupants
out of each others way. This idea carries into Alexander Klein’s “Functional House
for
Frictionless Living” in which his flow diagrams illustrate how the occupants never
have
to cross each other’s paths.

Response:
One of the most interesting points in Evans article for me was the juxtaposition
of
the classic Italian plan with the ideal English plan. I feel that it really highlights
how
culture affects, and is affected by architecture, and vice versa. The intimacy of
the Italian
plan where company would pass through bedrooms and other private areas may
have
been influenced by the intimacy of Raphael’s art. While on the other hand the
high
society sense of propriety that was prevalent in England in the 19th century means
that
there needed to be rooms for company, servants, and the family. This plays into
Evans
later statement that housing is an activity, not a place. I think that this is
important
because a home is not a static object, but rather it is shaped into what its
occupants want
it to be. The more interesting way to look at it however is how the architecture
shapes
the family. If everyone in the family has their own bedroom and bathroom it cuts
down
on their interaction with each other and the home translates into a more
“frictionless
living” situation. However, if there is a lot of common space the family is forced
into
contact with each other, which may or may not be better.

Questions:
1. Would you prefer a house with only all thoroughfare rooms or terminal rooms?
2. Do you feel human activity has more affect on architecture, or does
architecture
have more of an affect on human activity?
3. How can architects better integrate humans and human activity into their
plans?

Potrebbero piacerti anche