See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272209516

Flexibility in architecture and its relevance for the ubiquitous house

Article  in  Technoetic Arts a Journal of Speculative Research · December 2012

DOI: 10.1386/tear.10.2-3.213_1

CITATIONS READS

0 1,472

1 author:

Alexander Ćetković
University of Plymouth
11 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The (not so) Intelligent House: User Perception in an Interactive Architectural Environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander Ćetković on 17 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flexibility in architecture and its relevance for the
ubiquitious house
Alexander Ćetković
Ph.D. Research Fellow at the Planetary Collegium
University of Plymouth
Plymouth, Great Britain
acetkovic@acm.org
ABSTRACT
One of the important modernist terms - flexibility - offers
the introduction of time and of the unknown as parameters
in design. Yet the development of flexibility in modern ar-
chitecture shows also the ambivalent relationship between
architecture and the user - the objective of incorporating
flexibility in architecture. The span between introducing the
freedom of choice and expression and the reality of totally
controlled spaces and movements shows the range of inter-
pretations of this subject. By looking at the strategies and
evolution of flexibility in architecture one can project possi-
ble problems and frictions for the new discipline - ubiquitous
computing. Both Flexible Architecture and the Ubiquitous
House are devoted to space, time and technology, and in-
tend to give the user the maximum of possibilities inside the
house. What are the mistakes that some of the development
in flexible architecture has made, that ubiquitous computing
might learn from, especially in its relation to the user?
Keywords
determinismus, flexibility, flexible house, freedom of choice,
ideal user, intelligent house, ubiquitous house, user percep-
tion
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
Transcultural Tendencies Transmedial Transactions August 28 - 30, 2011,
Shanghai, China.
. ferent needs is more frequent during a building’s life cycle.
1. FLEXIBILITY IN ARCHITECTURE
“Flexibility is an important modernist term.
It offers the introduction of time and of the un-
known as parameters in design. It is an argu-
ment against the presumption that all parts of a
building should be destined for specific uses - a
recognition that all uses cannot be foreseen. ”
Forty[2]
“The philosophy behind the notion of flexibil-
ity is that the requirements of modern life are so
complex and changeable that any attempt on the
part of the designer to anticipate them results in
a building which is unsuited to its function and
represents, as it were, a ‘false consciousness’ of
the society in which he operates.”
Colquhoun[1]
Flexibility in architecture has arguably existed from early
on, but as a conscious concept it entered modern architec-
ture in the 1950s, and was closely related to the term func-
tionality or, in other words, the confluence of function and
space. Incorporating flexibility into a design was initially
seen as a progressive approach. The first of the controver-
sies over flexible architecture built up around the question as
to whether the architect should achieve flexibility by making
architecture vague and unfinished, leaving it for the future
to decide how it should look, or whether the architect should
create a fulfilled building with the flexibility incorporated.
The discussion grew into a critique of flexibility as creating
boring, uncertain solutions. As H. Hertzberger put it:
“Flexibility signifies - since there is no sin-
gle solution that is preferable to all others - the
absolute denial of a fixed, clearcut standpoint.
The flexible plan starts out from the certainty
that the correct solution does not exist, because
the problem requiring solution is in a permanent
state of flux, i.e. it is always temporary.”
Hertzberger[3]
Moreover, Hertzberger preferred polyvalent spaces that were
clearly defined, but at the same time open for different uses.
Today flexibility in architecture design has become an inte-
gral part of planning for industrial - and office - buildings,
where the fluctuation in functionalities and tenants with dif-
2. CATEGORIZATION OF FLEXIBLE AR-
CHITECTURE
“Flexible buildings are intended to respond to
changing situations in their use, operation or lo-
cation. This is architecture that adapts, rather
than stagnates; transforms, rather that restricts;
is mobile, rather than static; interacts with its
users, rather than inhibits. It is a design form
that is, by its very essence, cross-disciplinary and
multi-functional; consequently it is frequently in-
novative and expressive of contemporary design
issues.”
Kronenburg[5]
In R. Kronenburg’s definition there are four basic, overlap-
ping views of flexible architecture:
• adaptable architecture, where the alterations are in-
tended for changes that persist for longer time periods,
such as variations in number of dwellers (more chil-
dren) or their status (couple becoming married, chil-
dren growing older).
• transformable architecture that is usually foreseen for
functionalities that change on an hourly or daily basis.
The same space can, through structural changes, be
used for different, often conflicting functionalities.
• movable architecture, designated for one or a series of
related functionalities, is moved to the places where
the users need to apply these functions. These are
architectures used by organizations specializing in ac-
tions that are not fixed to one place, such as military,
hospitals, relief organizations, concerts and markets.
• interactive architecture that senses the need for change
and responds to it automatically.
A. Forty suggests a similar categorization with his categories
of redundancy and flexibility by technical means. The in-
teresting distinction from Kronenberg is Forty’s further cat-
egory of flexibility as a political strategy, where he draws
upon the theory by Lefebvre. As far as Lefebvre was con-
cerned, architects and architecture, complicit in the practice
of the abstract, dominant space, had no part whatsoever to
play in the realization of flexibility: ‘use’ was a political act
to be directed against architecture. He used the examples of
the structuralist movement that re-interpreted the city space
or buildings dedicated to certain functionalities, thus ‘liber-
ating’ them. The actions are seen as political acts against
capitalism:
“For Lefebvre, the capitalist domination of
space, both by imposing functional categories upon
it physically, and by imposing an abstract schema
through which the mind perceived space, was one
of capitalism’s most invasive acts[...] resistance
to ‘dominated space’ can only be effected by ap-
propriation, by the assertion of the freedom of
use, through the user’s realization of the space’s
flexibility and multifunctionality.”
Forty[2]
3. ARCHITECT’S FREEDOM OF DESIGN
VERSUS FREEDOM OF THE USER
The basic problem of flexibility in architecture is the inter-
pretation of the extent to which the architect is allowed to
determine the usages and from what point the user has the
freedom to change architecture. As Forty puts it, ‘The in-
corporation of “flexibility” into the design allowed architects
the illusion of projecting their control over the building into
the future, beyond the period of their actual responsibility
for it’ Forty[2].
Looking at the categories Kronenburg uses, we can see
that going from adaptable, through transformable and mov-
able, to interactive architecture, we have a flow from less
to more deterministic interventions on the part of the ar-
chitect. Thus, the intelligent building might seem at first
glance the most modern and most flexible to the needs of
the user, but in reality only those functionalities that the de-
signer has foreseen, allowed and integrated in the design can
be accomplished, usually leaving the user with few options
to change the way the space and technology are used.
4. USER IN ARCHITECTURE
In my opinion, central to the critique of flexible architec-
ture is not the critique of functionality linked to space, but
the way the user of the flexible architecture is perceived. I
would like to draw upon the works of Jonathan Hill[4] and
Clemens Plank[7] to explain here the role of user-perception
in the design of flexible architecture. Hill analyses the evo-
lution of the relations between the architect and the user by
describing three different typologies of how the user has been
perceived: passive, reactive and creative user. Plank builds
upon this categorization (his terms: passive, communicative
and performative user) and introduces a further category
of the conscious user where he analyses how users can be
more active by consciously grasping the potentials of their
environments.
4.1 Passive User
Initially, the average user in architecture design was re-
duced to a normative figure, degraded to the possible move-
ments, minimal space measurements and degrees of freedom.
The consequences were (1) that of a denial of user, which
assumes a building need not be occupied for it to be recog-
nized as architecture; and (2) the control of the user, which
attributes to the user forms of behaviour acceptable to the
architect. The early modernist architect ignored visual ref-
erences to the body; instead he or she focused on the body’s
actions.
4.2 Reactive or communicative user
Today this structural understanding has led, e.g., the ar-
chitects of the deconstruction movement to dismantle form
and function, so that function follows individual interpreta-
tion. The critique of the communicative user is that he or
she creates a one-way sender-receiver model.
4.3 Creative or performative user
The creative user responds to architecture simply concern-
ing its physical appearance and appropriates it for his or her
needs. For Plank, the performative user reacts to aspects of
the building he or she relates to, instead of perceiving ar-
chitecture as a mere object. This notion anticipates a shift
 from representation to presentation. Performative concepts
range from projects that achieve a shift in attention away
from symbolic, image-orientated or diagrammatic strategies
towards a context of actions and effect. Facades and installa-
tions interact with the environment in the sense of technical
infrastructures or as kinetic structures reacting directly to
the observer or user.
4.4 Conscious user
Plank goes from the philosophical notion that every in-
dividual perceives the world in his or her own way. Even
though the surroundings stay the same, every individual ex-
periences them differently based on the luggage of memories
and sensory, cultural and personal predispositions, and con-
sequently reacts differently to the context. This epistemo-
logical approach questions whether we all read the architec-
ture the same way, and especially whether the user relates
to architecture the way the architect wanted it to be read.
Instead a more ambiguous approach is desired allowing dif-
ferent portrayals for users with different backgrounds, and,
most notably, allows the user himself or herself to determine
how to interpret the space. He cites Lefebvre, for whom
the resistance to dominated space ‘can only be effected by
the user who appropriates space through realization of the
flexibility and multifunctionality of space’.
5. UBIQUITOUS HOUSE
Definition
The ubiquitous house is defined here as the house of the fu-
ture with its ubiquitous technologies interlinked, creating a
smart environment capable of controlling the different func-
tionalities of the house. The main focus of such an environ-
ment is the inhabitant. The sensors observe the inhabitants
so as to control the different facilities of the building, such
as lighting, air conditioning, heating and humidity. Efforts
in further development in this area are heading towards the
creation of an intelligent house - intelligent in the sense that
it learns by observing the users’ reactions to specific situa-
tions or deploying resources intelligently.
5.1 User in a ubiquitous house
The goal of a ubiquitous house is to create a better, more
advanced house for the user. As with many new technologies
there are reports of friction in the user’s acceptance of such
technology. In my opinion, these problems do not arise only
from the classic user-interface problem or the unaccustomed
usage of technology, as reports might suggest, but seem to
be grounded in the approach to the user’s interaction with
such technology.
Looking at some of the articles, theses and books about
the ubiquitous house, it is obvious that most of the projects
are developed around a normative user (passive user). The
ideals for air conditioning, heating, airflow control, light and
shading control are usually defined around a comfort zone
for users, i.e. ideal values of humidity, temperature, light
condition, etc. This comfort zone describes the parameters
with which an ‘ideal’ user feels comfortable, regardless of
sex, age, size, body predispositions or even the activity of
the user. The ‘ideal’ user is defined out of digitally collected
statistical values, giving a mean according to which the aver-
ages user feels comfortable. The outcome is that ‘cosiness’ is
prescribed, or, respectively, ‘not feeling comfortable’ implies
that such a user does not match the ideal user.
View publication stats
In early ubiquitous houses the user was seen as an activa-
tor for the different functionalities, reduced to a parameter
for the gadgetry tucked somewhere in the house. Today,
advanced environments allow the user to adapt the technol-
ogy to his or her needs, where the different parameters and
levels of sensor can be (re-) programmed. But these are
usually generalized functionalities, as in most cases there is
no distinction between users living in these houses. Again,
more advanced systems in experimental houses allow sep-
arate functionalities for different users, depending on how
they were programmed. Next-generation systems, as in the
‘adaptive house’[6], learn automatically from the habits of
each separate user, so as to predict in advance the actions
and desires of users and act appropriately.
The ‘adaptive house’ is an example where the system anal-
yses the correlation between household activity and user re-
actions. The neural network learns over time how the user
wants it to react to specific conditions. The user and the
system not only interact with each other, but they actually
adapt to each other, as certain habits emerge over time.
6. CONCLUSION
In my opinion there are many parallels between the devel-
opment of flexible architecture and the design of the ubiq-
uitous house. Both try to encourage the user to embrace
change as an integral part of life at home and both see tech-
nology as a means to achieve this goal. But there are also
parallels in the way the user is perceived. The evolution
of the architect’s user perception during the development
of the flexible house seems to be repeated by designers and
technicians in the design of the ubiquitous house. As with
many human-technology design issues, the interaction is of-
ten seen on the level of the interface. The real question lies
in the aim of introducing the technology. Is the intent of
design a better user interface to enable the user to use and
control the technology? Or is the technology there to aug-
ment the abilities of the user and empower him or her to
do things he or she usually cannot do? Then the goal of
the design would be to motivate the user to try out things
beyond his or her familiar settings and realize the extended
capabilities of such an environment.
7. REFERENCES
[1] A. Colquhoun. Plateau beaubourg. In Collected Essays
in Architectural Criticism, pages 82–89. Black Dog
Pub, London, 2009.
[2] A. Forty. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of
Modern Architecture. Thames & Hudson, May 2004.
[3] H. Hertzberger. Lessons in Architecture. Uitgeverij 010,
Rotterdam, 1991.
[4] J. Hill. Actions of Architecture: Architects and Creative
Users. Routledge, 1 edition, July 2003.
[5] R. Kronenburg. Flexible: Architecture that Responds to
Change. Laurence King Publishers, May 2007.
[6] M. Mozer. Lessons form an adaptive house. In D. Cook
and S. Das, editors, Smart envirionments:
Technologies, protocols, and applications, pages
273–294. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2005.
[7] C. Plank. The Conscious User of Architecture. PhD
thesis, Leopold Franzens UniversitÃd’t Innsbruck -
FakultÃd’t fuÌĹr Architektur, Innsbruck, Austria, Aug.
2010.