It seems a perogrullada this question, but will see that it is not it so much. The house, purple or room, is that physical space, generally a building, whose main reason to be will be the one to offer shelter and rest, thanks to the rooms that has in his interior, to the people and to all what they will bring achieve, as they are his utensils and personal properties. This definition, found in Internet, has provided me a lot of keys.
The first: the house is a fisic space
It´s inside a building (generally). Also it could be inside a shop, of a cabin, of a cave, or even under earth.
It offers shelter, that is to say receives and receives to the people and to his objects.
Evidently the housing is great more. And already I have commented on it in some another post. It is that intangible place that forms a part of the human being as an extension of yes. That serves for many things: to rest, to think, to receive, (some, to show), to chat, to read, to create, to love, to look (for the window sometimes), to study, to educate, to feel comfortable, to idle, to wash and to make up, to decorate, to cook, to order, to disorder, to listen to music or the singing of the birds, not to do anything, to do of your cap a sayo, to be licked the wounds, to cry, to laugh, to telephone, to be absent, to be active, to store … and so many infinitives that relate to the fact of BEING.
Because of it – and accidentally to enter the history of the housings throughout the centuries different cultures – I question the question above outlined. And I say to myself will not it be what in general we are copying types (be read tipologías) of other moments that not of the current one? Will not it be what for many experimentation (it is never too much) that is done, we continue constructing how the Sumerian, based on BRICKS; how the avant-gardists of the modern movement after the world wars, based on MINIMUMS; how the individuals of the 19th century who were designing enormous palaces full of STAYS, or how in the epoch of the Franco’s regime with the distribution to the use: lounge to be opposite to the TV (to get silly better), tiny kitchen, slightly usable terrace in climates as that of Madrid, and rooms where a pin does not fit if one throws him (a “marvellous” promoter suggested me)?
And the new emergent families? What does happen with the major ones that live alone and cannot use for yes same? And with the ” new grandparents ” (as so many people of my generation)? And with the young persons, pairs without children, children without one of his progenitors, friends who share floor? And how to arrange the work from house? And how to share ” independence and intimacy ” (Humboldt dixit) in the new relations, in 45 m2? Why do we live so far away of the level of land? Why do not we take part in the decisions of design of our own house? Why are not ythey greeted to the neighbors, community spaces are not shared, are not tried to make common certain housekeeping wash as the clothes, to tend or to take care to the shoots? For what residential building sometimes do it look like quite less it? A jail, a diplodocus, the pierced one donuts, a beehive, a sculpture, a puzzle or a simple act in bad taste in most of the cases? By what house cannot it be made based on good architecture and have in addition image of “house”? Why cannot we urbanize the top terraces? Why we cannot aspire to a worthy housing in s. The XXIst?
Why house has it it to be for the whole life?
You ask so many people without answering that I appear without obtaining too many possible answers. And all this for thinking about the first one that it happened to me immediately after a post of Molina’s Santiago in The Alive City, is it possible to be call a housing to the social housing? And the last one such what be she to designed in a tree?
Cristina García-Rosales. architect
madrid. january 2011