SSS10 Proceedings 002...SSS10Proceedings+of+the10th+International+SpaceSyntax+Symposium++...

SSS10 Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium

R Deshpande & R Kotharkar ‘Dwellings’ then and now: A topological approach for privacy analysis of ‘Wada’ and modern houses

2:1

002

‘Dwellings’ then and now: A topological approach for privacy analysis of ‘Wada’ and modern houses Roopal Deshpande Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India [email protected] Rajashree Kotharkar Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India [email protected]

Abstract

Every culture influences the way people use spaces, which in turn are manifested in its domestic architecture. The paper examines two distinct residential typologies: one traditionally evolved, without an architect (Wada) and other modern dwelling designed by an architect (bungalow), to analyze the inter-‐relationship between spatial configuration and privacy. Authors examine ten traditional houses i.e. Wada (a distinct residential typology of central India) and fifty one modern houses. The concepts of privacy are analyzed by identifying physical and non-‐physical domains within traditional houses using Space Syntax Method. Preliminary study of plans of Wadas and modern houses to identify physical change shows considerable reduction of transition-‐spaces. Historic documents and interview schedule conducted with historian helped to understand activity-‐space relationship and identify domains within the traditional houses. Three domains namely; social, functional and sacred-‐domains form the essential attribute of Wada.

Paper attempt to find answers to following research questions. What is the impact of reduction in number and change in character of transition spaces on spatial configuration from traditional to modern houses? In what way the domains identified in traditional houses continue to exist within modern houses? How does blurring of the boundaries between social and functional domains of modern houses influence the privacy within the house? The study is conducted using justified permeability graphs to analyse depth, integration and topology of both sets of houses and also the identified domains.

The paper identifies spatial differences and disconnect that exists between two sets of houses. Finally the paper concludes that rather than studying the individual activities and there correlation with all other activities, it is fruitful to identify the realms existing within the house.

Keywords

Wada, modern houses, privacy, configuration, topology.



2:2

1. Introduction

Man-‐environment relationship is a complex phenomenon. Man creates relationship with built-‐environment in many ways. This relationship is investigated by researchers with different perceptive. Study of privacy or ways of defining one’s territory can be fundamental way to understand Man-‐Environment relationship. This is best conducted through study of residential typology. Altman suggests, home designs are traditional route to understand privacy. The study of privacy should proceed from environment closest to the self, like personal space and then to more remote features of the environment such as territories, areas and objects. Altman (1976)

The paper investigates privacy within domestic spaces through spatial analysis. Privacy is a means through which the inter-‐relationship within family and that of family members with visitors is governed. A house should provide varied spatial property to conduct different domestic activities, ranging from social, personal to intimate activities. Internal organization of rooms regulate visibility and accessibility between spaces based on cultural customs and social conventions. Lawrence (1987, p. 172)

Privacy is governed by socio-‐cultural norms. The paper selects two residential typologies, one, evolved over a period of time with physical forms experimented for a long period before they were consolidated i.e. ‘Traditional House-‐form’ and second is the ‘Modern House-‐form’, spontaneous, subjective to architect’s perception and user’s aspirations. The traditional forms respond to the social, cultural and physical needs of users and are considered authentic to time, place and context. The two house-‐forms serve similar domestic functions but have different spatial properties. A disconnect exists between the traditional and modern domestic forms. It is important to investigate the way architect designed house-‐forms address to privacy needs.

Paper explores two attributes of architectural privacy. One is a spatial element, i.e. ‘transition-‐space’ and other is activity-‐governed aspect of privacy as ‘activity-‐domains’. Transition-‐spaces are an important indicator to analyse privacy. The quality of transition space regulates intrapersonal contact. It is crucial for defining and regulating interrelationship between people and objects. Lawrence (1987, p. 172). They connect two different activities and also grant identity to spaces by separating them. Transition spaces have universal function of connecting as well as separating activities.

Within every culture, pattern of activities evolve sets of domains within the house which become means to achieve privacy. According to Chermayeff and Alexander, (1962), anatomy of privacy for residential block, the integrity of each space depends on the physical elements providing separation, insulation, access and controlled transfer between domains. The set of domains and boundaries give plan its hierarchical structure. These domains and boundaries also exist within the houses. It is important to identify set of spaces within the house as activity-‐based domains.

Privacy is articulated through realms in the house. To understand the spatial properties of transition-‐spaces and spatial-‐domains of two house-‐forms ‘Space Syntax Method’ is used. ‘Space Syntax Method’ is based on social logic. It analyses the way arrangement of cells (spaces) and entrances control access and movement. The graphical analysis makes syntax of plan legible. It allows comparison of buildings using same parameters. Also, allow comparison of spaces with different activities existing within a building (Hillier and Hanson, 1984).

‘Space Syntax Method’ facilitates to interpret the spatial configuration in buildings. It helps to study the relation between two spaces with respect to set of spaces within a complex. The method is a complex idea of spatial and social relations expressed in spaces (Hillier et al., 1987, pp. 363). Many researchers have used this method to analyse buildings. For instance, Robinson, (2001) used Space Syntax Method to categorize domestic spaces as public-‐linking to the outside world, private-‐relating to community activities within the residence and intimate-‐ activities linked to the individual.



2:3

2. Methodological Framework

Secondary study and interview schedule with historians is conducted to understand the family structure and pattern of living in traditional houses. This helped to identify ‘domains’ in traditional houses. Modern houses are categorized period-‐wise to understand the changes occurred over the period.

‘Justified permeability graph’ using JASS software is used for both sets of houses. Main entrance to the house is considered as the root to conduct all calculations. In justified graph, a space is represented as a circle and lines stemming from it represent its connections to other spaces. The letters ‘a’,’ b’, ‘c’, ‘d’ represent structural dimension of spaces. Dominant space type within the system provide character to the configuration (Bellal, 2007, p. 061-‐04; Franca and Holanda, 2003; Franca and Holanda, 2009; Manum, 2009; Aldrigue and Trigueiro, 2012).

The measure of relative depth, ‘integration’ is used, which expresses the relative depth of that space from all other spaces. Hanson (1998, p. 82). Distribution of integration values of domains is arranged in descending order to analyse activity -‐ space relation.

Syntactic analysis is carried out for both sets of houses. Following are the study parameters: 1. Study of ratio of transition space to number of spaces, pattern and distribution of transition

spaces, 2. Analysis of Integration values 3. Analysis of integration values, topology and depths of domains

3. Traditional House-‐form

Courtyard houses are distinct traditional house-‐form in India. The paper studies Wada, one of the courtyard houses of central India. Ten Wadas of Maharashtra, India are selected for study. Wada as a residential typology was largely built during 1700-‐1900 A.D. ‘An architectural prototype, the form was used for construction of houses of different social classes and adapted to diverse lifestyles of its owners. These were introvert with central courtyards, to grant privacy and protection’ Gupta (2013).

Family Life and Privacy Traditional Indian families were joint families, with three or more generations staying together sharing the kitchen. Eldest member of the family got the status as head of family. Spaces within the house were categorized as gender based domains. Rather than individuals, family members were recognized as men, women and children. Within the traditional setup, fulfilling the demands of privacy of an ‘individual’ was not a priority. ‘Higher the place of individual in the family, more important privacy was and more clearly it was articulated in the interior forms of the house’ (Desai et al. 2012).



2:4

Composition of Traditional House-‐form

Figure 1: Grouping of Activities in a Wada Plan-‐form of ‘Wada’ had definite spatial hierarchy-‐whether physical or sensory-‐ demarcated by a series of thresholds. The thick walls acted as boundaries between various realms of the house, permitting spatial porosity only within demarcated domains’. Gupta (2013)

Transition-‐spaces performed more than a single function of separation or connection of activities. These spaces were multi-‐activity depending on its location and size. Common transition-‐spaces present in all the Wadas were the courtyards (Chawks). Surrounding the chawks were open verandas (osari) which allowed multiple activities to take place. Wadas were single or multiple courtyards. All chawks were aligned along a central axis and surrounded by rooms having similar activities. (Kotharkar and Deshpande, 2012) (Refer Figure 1)

In Wadas with multiple courtyards, the outer most courtyards were used for public purpose. The second was for entertaining important guests. The remaining courtyards had spaces related to household activities Girhe (2004). The entrance veranda was used for receiving strangers. Entry of male visitors was restricted to the inner spaces. Women visitors were entertained in inner courtyard used by women of the family. The spaces surrounding the inner courtyard were categorized as semi-‐private. Sleeping areas or private activities was located on the first and second floor. Floor separated private from semi-‐private and public spaces of the house. Sacred space was located on ground floor. it was accessed by one family member at a time Andhare (2012).

Three distinct domains existed within the house. First, the ‘social-‐domain’ used mostly by men of the family. Second, the ‘functional-‐domain’ used by women of the family. Third, the ‘sacred-‐domain’ used by all the family members. All these domains are placed on ground floor. The way these domains function and retain their identities is important to understand.



2:5

Analysis of Traditional House-‐form The selected Wadas for study have multiple entrances used for different purposes. The visitor’s entrance is considered as root to draw all the justified graphs. (Refer Figure 2) Social Spaces Functional spaces Sacred spaces

Wada No

CS Acti: tran

tran (%)

Mean inte.

D orient Inte type D Inte Type D inte type D

1 33 1.00 50 1.26 9 tran 1.13 b 4 1.21 B 5 1.51 a 5

2 30 1.22 50 1.15 11 tran 0.99 c 1 1.04 C 3 1.51 a 4

3 34 1.50 44 1.11 8 tran 0.97 c 5 1.99 C 8 1.76 a 7

4 39 1.66 43 1.27 8 tran 0.88 b 3 1.30 C 7 1.19 a 6

5 48 1.84 41 1.29 10 tran 0.85 c 4 1.31 C 4 1.37 a 4

6 68 2.07 40 1.39 9 Acti 0.94 c 5 1.17 C 6 1.28 a 4

7 47 2.27 40 1.17 11 Acti 0.98 c 4 0.97 C 4 1.29 a 5

8 49 2.33 40 1.34 10 tran 0.91 b 3 0.93 C 4 1.25 a 5

9 47 2.33 40 1.23 9 tran 1.13 c 3 1.14 C 5 1.63 a 5

10 24 2.33 39 1.14 7 tran 0.57 c 3 0.97 C 4 1.36 a 3

mean/ mode

47 1.85 43 1.24 9 tran 0.93 c 3 1.14 C 4 1.41 a 5

CS-‐ Convex space, Tran-‐Transition space, inte-‐ Real Relative Asymmetry, orient-‐ Activity/ Transition oriented configuration, D-‐Depth, Acti-‐Activity

Table 1: Syntactic Values of Traditional Houses



2:6

Sleeping area

Functional Space

Sanctum

Receiving Guest

Open Space

Office Space

Transition-‐space

Service-‐space

Transition-‐space Activity-‐space

Figure 3: Justified Graph Highlighting Transition Spaces in Traditional Houses

Activity-‐Transition Relationship The study of transition-‐space within traditional houses reveals that it forms large component of convex spaces (Refer Figure 3). The percentage of transition spaces for all the Wadas is 43 % .In Wada number 1 and 9 the percentage of transition-‐space is highest i.e. 50%. The lowest percentage of transition-‐spaces is 39% in Wada no.10 (Refer Table 1).

It is observed that prayer room or devghar is separated from the primary movement routes by a transition-‐space. Series of transition-‐spaces exists before reaching the private resting spaces of upper floor. Series of transition-‐spaces are linked to each other and the activities branch out. (Refer Figure 3) As far as study of inclination of the Wada as transition or activity-‐oriented is concerned, it is observed that the Wada no-‐ 6 and 7 are the only Wadas whose configuration is activity-‐oriented. Remaining 8 Wadas are transition-‐oriented. This shows that predominantly the Wada has a transition-‐dominant configuration. (Table 1)



2:7

Analysis of Integration values The mean integration value of Wadas ranges between 1.115 -‐ 1.4. The average integration is 1.261. The highest mean integration value is of Wada no. 6 with highest number of convex spaces. Even with highest number of convex spaces it is well integrated. The series of three inner courtyards increase its integration. When compared with the depth of other Wada, Wada no 6 has lesser depth i.e. 9. While, Wada no.7 has less number of convex spaces but has more depth. Wada no. 3 shows lowest mean integration value. This Wada has multiple entrances and two staircases: one internal and one external which help to form a well integrated configuration. (Table 1)

Domains of Wada

Integration Values of Domains

Social-‐domains are set of enclosed and semi-‐enclosed spaces used for receiving guests. Functional-‐domain is assigned to kitchen or the cooking areas, and devghar or sanctum is identified as sacred-‐domain. The analysis is conducted using three syntactic measures; integration, topology of the spaces and depth of each domain. (Table 1)

Figure 4: Distribution of Integration values of Social, Functional and Sacred domains and Mean Integration of Domains.



2:8

Comparative analysis of integration value of domains of all the Wadas when arranged in their order of integration shows a pattern. The order of integration is least for social-‐domain, followed by value of functional-‐domain and highest for the sacred-‐domain. Thus, most integrated domain within the configuration is the social-‐domain which is placed at the entrance and mostly used by men of the family (Figure 4).

The second in order is functional-‐domain i.e. the cooking areas, which are used exclusively by the women of the family and are accessed through inner courtyard. These spaces are completely enclosed, linear in shape with few window openings. Kitchen was considered as sacred space and entry of an outsider was restricted. The daily chores by the women of the house began only after they had their bath and offered prayers. Andhare (2012) Despite being functional-‐space, it was segregated to retain its sacredness which is observed in all Wadas. (Figure 4)

Lastly, devghar is most segregated space within the system. Usually, one family member used it at a time to offer prayers. The space was square; small in size accessed through small door opening. The study of plans of Wadas shows that devghar is located close to social spaces and creates an illusion to be well integrated within the system. Syntactic analysis discloses its separateness. (Figure 4)

Topology of Domains

The study of topology of domains reveals important spatial properties; the spaces forming social and functional-‐domains are essentially ‘c’-‐type space. They are part of the ring which connects the other spaces of the house. Ring with social spaces connects the outdoor spaces, courtyard, semi-‐open spaces and private drawing rooms used for receiving exclusive guests. Ring connecting functional spaces include storage spaces, backyards, inner courtyards and serving spaces. Such patterns of rings bring together allied activities and also separated it from other domains to retain its identity. (Table 1)

Sacred spaces within all the Wadas are categorized as ‘a’-‐ type space i.e. terminating spaces, connected only through a single entrance. They are accessed through a transition space which further separates it from other spaces of the house. This allows prayers to be done in isolation and be connected to the Almighty.

Depth of Domains

The depth of social-‐domain of the Wadas is between 1to 5 depending upon the scale of Wada. The modal value of the depth of social space is 3 (Table 1). This suggests that spaces are shallow. They are public spaces and also buffer inner private spaces of the house. This domain is largely men’s domain to receive male visitors. The women guests were directed towards the inner courtyard.

Functional-‐domain has depth value ranging from 3 to 8, the modal value being 4 (Table 1). Although, moderately integrated spaces within the house, they are deeper from the root i.e. entrance.

The depth of sacred-‐domain ranges between 3 and 7; the modal is 5 forming the deepest domain (Table 1). Comparative study of the three domains depicts that the social-‐domain is the shallowest, following the functional-‐domain while the deepest is sacred domain within the configuration. Due to syntactic analysis this important character is decoded which mere study of plan fails to express.



2:9

4. Analysis of Modern House-‐form

In India, houses designed after independence is influenced by colonial style. The traditional houses gradually diminished and new houses followed planning principles of bungalows. ‘The bungalow form was adopted and adapted by the indigenous populations in India to suit their needs. Bungalow was and is single-‐family dwelling with a veranda, built within a plot of land that is clearly defined by boundaries’. (Desai et al.,2012)

The new form of houses became prevalent after independence due to changing lifestyle. Amongst major changes, workplace and house were separated. The courtyards were eliminated. Economizing of space gained priority. Verandas continued, but its form changed. Toilets became part of the main structure. Bedrooms continued to occupy upper floors

Social Spaces

Functional spaces Sacred spaces

M.H. (period)

Activ: tran

Mean inte. orient Inte D Inte D inte D

1970-‐1985

0.332 1.406 Activ 1.126 3 1.269 4 1.228 4

1986-‐2000

0.330 1.432 Activ 1.031 3 1.248 3 1.273 5

2001-‐2014

0.325 1.399 Activ 0.992 3 1.265 3 1.196 4

Mean 0.329 1.412 Activ 1.049 3 1.260 3 1.232 4 MH-‐ Modern Houses, Activ-‐Activity Spaces, Tran-‐Transition Spaces, Orient-‐ Activity/ Transition oriented configuration, Inte-‐Real Asymmetry, D-‐ Depth

Table 2: Syntactic Values of Modern Houses



2:10

Sleeping area

Functional Space

Sanctum

Receiving Guest

Open Space

Transition-‐space

Service-‐space

Figure 5: Plans and Justified Graphs of Modern Houses



2:11

51 samples of modern Maharashtrian houses of Nagpur, Maharashtra designed by architects are selected for study. The houses selected have joint families sharing single kitchen (Refer Figure 5). The houses constructed during 1970-‐2014 are considered modern houses. It was during 1970s that architect’s firms were established in city. To analyse the changes over a period of time, houses are categorized according to their year of construction (1970-‐1985, 1986-‐2000 and 2001-‐2014).

Transition Spaces within Modern Houses

Figure 6: Justified Graph highlighting Transition spaces in Modern Houses

The analysis of transition-‐Spaces within the houses depicts that open spaces form a larger component of the transition-‐space. Public and semi-‐public domains are devoid of transition-‐spaces. The private domains i.e. bed rooms are completely secluded from rest of the house. Bed rooms are connected through passages. (Figure 6)

Transition-‐space Activity-‐space



2:12

Period-‐wise change in ratio of transition to activity spaces:

Figure 7: Period-‐wise Ratio of Transition to Activity Spaces of Modern Houses

Period-‐wise ratio of transition to activity-‐spaces when analysed shows that the ratio has reduced in the later period (Refer Figure 7). The reduction of transition-‐spaces means that activities have come close to each other or are in direct contact. It can also be interpreted as, boundaries have become fluid and spaces have merged with each other. Preliminary study of plans of modern houses shows that entertaining, cooking, eating and sacred spaces have come close to each other.

The plans of houses are analysed to understand the pattern of merging. The first category is ‘open-‐plan’ which consists of drawing, dining and kitchen without boundaries. The second category is ‘drawing-‐dining’ sharing single architectural space. Third category is ‘kitchen–dining’ and fourth category with all activities with distinct boundaries as ‘compartment’.

‘Kitchen-‐dining’ is the most popular category. Remaining three categories have equal number of houses (Refer Figure 8). Houses with ‘open-‐plan’ are mostly constructed after 2000. Other three categories of plan-‐forms have no statistical correlation with its period of construction.

Figure 8: Distribution of Plan-‐forms in Modern Houses

Character of transition spaces:

The character of transition-‐space is governed by its location, syntactic value and number of spaces it connects. Analysis of inter-‐relation between number of convex spaces (without exterior) with number of transition-‐spaces shows that a positive correlation exists in the selected samples. The maximum numbers of transition-‐spaces are observed in house number 49 having thirty two convex-‐spaces out of which nine are transition-‐spaces. Minimum three numbers of transition-‐spaces are observed in 15 houses. Three transition-‐spaces of 15 houses are veranda, staircase and passage (Refer Figure 9).



2:13

Figure 9: Convex and Transition Space Relation

Broadly, transition spaces for the sample houses can be categorized as:

I. Visitor-‐Resident link-‐ Veranda connecting the outdoor space and drawing room II. Resident-‐Resident link-‐ Staircase connecting ground and first floor III. Family-‐individual link-‐ Passage connecting living room and bed rooms

Integration:

Period-‐wise integration value of houses reveals that, houses built during 1986-‐2000 are least integrated houses. Reasons for least integration is due to reduction in number of transition-‐spaces, reduced space-‐link ratio and reduction of number of rings. Houses constructed during 1970-‐1985 have more numbers transition-‐spaces and higher space-‐link ratio which create well integrated configurations. The houses constructed during 2000-‐2014 are most integrated due ‘open-‐plan’. (Refer Table 3)

Domain Analysis

Integration Values of Domains:

Houses Integration (Without exterior)

Av. Integration values of Domains

Integration (With Exterior)

1970-‐1985 1.540 1.158 1.41

1986-‐2000 1.471 1.136 1.43

2001-‐2014 1.401 1.172 1.40

Table 3: Period-‐wise Integration (without exterior) and Average Integration Values of Three Domains



2:14

Figure 10: Integration of Social, Functional and Sacred Domains of Modern Houses

Period-‐wise comparative study of integration values of three domains with mean integration value of the house reveal that values of domains are lesser than integration value of house. Domains in all the period are well integrated with other spaces of the house. Over the time, mean integration value of houses have reduced (Refer Table 3).

The integration value of three domains depict that there does not exist any dominant pattern in order of integration. The social-‐domain in all periods is most integrated within the configuration. Integration value of functional-‐domain has remained constant in all three periods. Sacred-‐domain shows a variation, but difference is negligible to be considered. Houses (1986-‐2000) have sacred-‐domain secluded from other domains. During 2000-‐2014, sacred-‐domain has acquired a more integrated property than functional-‐domain (Refer Figure 10).

Topology of Domains:

The study of topology of domains shows that ‘c’ type space is dominant. ‘d’ type space is completely absent and ‘a’ type space is used only for sacred-‐domain. The three domains have ‘c’-‐type spaces evident within the system, which means that all domains are part of the ring. Study of justified graphs shows that 50% of houses have a single ring. (Refer Table 4b) This means, houses with ‘c’-‐type domains are part of a single ring. Some houses have ‘b’-‐type social and functional-‐domain but the number is insignificant. 37% of houses have ‘a’-‐type sacred-‐domain. This allows the space to be isolated to retain its sacredness. (Refer Table 4a)

Table 4a-‐Topology of Domains of Modern Houses

Table 4b-‐Number of Rings

Topology of Domains of Modern Houses

Domains a type b type c type d type

Social 0 6 45 0 Functional 0 10 41 0

sacred 19 0 32 0

Number of Rings

Rings Houses

0 1

1 26

2 8 3 6

4 and above 10

Total 51



2:15

Depth of Domains

The analysis of depth of functional, social and sacred-‐domains reveals that shallowest is social-‐domain from the root. During, 1986-‐2014, functional-‐domain is placed along with the social-‐domain to be equally shallow space. Sacred-‐domain is deeper within the configuration (Refer Table 2). Period-‐wise analysis of the depth of domains depicts a haphazard character, unable to form a distinct pattern.

Sacred-‐domain has witness change over the period. Amongst 51 samples, only 15 houses have sanctum as an independent convex-‐space. Remaining 36 houses have sanctum placed with some other activity-‐space. Kitchen-‐ sanctum sharing a space is highest in number, followed by dining-‐ sanctum and least is drawing-‐sanctum. Few houses have sanctum located in one of the bedrooms on ground floor.

5. Discussion

Transition Spaces

Comparative study of ratio of transition to activity in Wadas and modern houses shows remarkable reduction of transition-‐spaces in modern houses. Both house-‐forms have same number of transition-‐spaces on first floor and second floor. Difference in number of transition-‐spaces is observed on ground floor.

In traditional houses, transition and activity-‐spaces are interwoven. Series of transition-‐spaces are linked to each other as continuous spine connecting entire house. Set of spaces forming a domain share a ring this ring branches out of transition-‐space. (Refer Figure 3) Such pattern functions at two levels, first, it links all domains to each other through transition-‐space. For instance, set of spaces for receiving guests are connected through transition-‐space to set of spaces used for cooking and eating. It provides a distinct boundary to each activity. Second, door connecting any activity if closed, completely segregates that domain from rest of the house. Yet, all spaces forming that domain are internally connected to each other. This provides an opportunity to isolate a domain instead of a single space. This is a peculiar characteristic of Wadas.

The analysis of modern houses reveals that most houses have a loop of internal and external spaces. Activity-‐spaces are sandwiched between sets of transition-‐spaces, thus alternate activity and transition-‐space pattern is created within the configuration. The domains are devoid of transition-‐spaces (Refer Figure 6). Such configurations bring together the social, functional and sacred-‐domains.

Integration:

Integration Wada 1.240

1970-‐1985 1.406 1986-‐2000 1.432

2001-‐2014 1.399 Table 5: Integration of Traditional and Modern Houses

The traditional house is more integrated house-‐form than modern house. Traditional houses have more number of spaces than modern houses yet they form better integrated configurations. Spaces in traditional houses are brought close with use of transition spaces, ‘c’ and ‘d’ type spaces. Also, interconnected spaces facilitate more route choice to move within the house.



2:16

Domains

Social, functional and sacred-‐domains in Wadas are distinct. It is reflected through their integration values and depth from entrance. All domains follow a pattern of distribution of integration value. All the Wadas share similar spatial configuration. Thus, Wada as a house-‐form can be concluded as a ‘genotype’. Modern houses do not display any pattern of distribution of integration values of domains. The topological study of domains reveals that houses constructed during 1970-‐1985 topologically resemble to the traditional houses.

Traditional houses had domain-‐wise rings to connect similar activities. This creates heterogeneous spatial character to perform different domestic activities. Traditional houses provide varied spatial property to host different activities. In modern houses a single ring passes through all the domains linking one activity to other. This creates a homogenous spatial character and reduction in varied spatial property to carry different activities.

In traditional houses minimum depth are spaces for receiving guests. In modern houses it is social and functional domain. Both these spaces share similar accessibility. It can be concluded that social difference of gender that existed in past is blurred and reflected through spatial configuration. Kitchens of modern houses are not only easily accessible but deliberately designed to create visual connection with social spaces.

Houses built in 1980s have shown more changes in spatial property of domains. This period also show reduction in number of transition-‐spaces. This was the period of introduction of television which influenced lifestyle and family-‐structure. This was period of social change during which joint families disintegrating into nuclear families. The social change is reflected through the spatial transformations in houses of this period.

Houses constructed after 2000 have ‘open-‐plans’ this increases visibility, audibility and accessibility within domains. Integration values with and without exterior reveals similar values for the houses of this period. Spaces provide similar inter-‐relationship between visitors and family members and within family members. These houses satisfy privacy needs of individuals rather than privacy of the family.

6. Conclusion

Traditional Houses seems to have lost its relevance in today’s context, due to reasons like, changes in lifestyle and economizing of spaces. Yet they form the root to cultural, social and behavioural pattern of the present. Their study decodes the intangible attributes which forms the background to analyze modern houses. Identification of Domains based on social and cultural norms within the house are important. Domains facilitate healthy inter-‐relationship amongst family members and family and visitors. Rather than studying individual activities and its correlation with all other activities it is fruitful to identify realms existing within the house. Set of spaces forming realms within the house help to articulate privacy.

Transition spaces are not mere connectors but its property has social significance in house design. Also, domains are outcome of socio-‐cultural needs of a cultural group. Such studies can form knowledge base for design considerations to create user-‐oriented architecture.

Glossary

Wada-‐ Traditional residential Typology of Maharashtra, India ‘devghar’-‐ Sanctum ‘Osari’-‐ Semi-‐open space surrounding the courtyard ‘chawk’-‐ Courtyard



2:17

Acknowledgements

Interview: Andhare (2012), Personal Interview conducted with historian of Nagpur.

Maps, Photographs and Figures: Figures, plans, graphs and tables are prepared by the authors.

References

Aldrigue, M. and Trigueiro, E. (2012), ‘Modern Dwelling In the 1970’s: A Syntactic Analysis of Residences’ in João Pessoa, Brazil’. In Greene, M., Reyes, J. and Castro, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Space Syntax Symposium, Santiago de Chile: PUC, p. 8163:1-‐13 Altman, I. (1976), ‘Privacy: A Conceptual Analysis’, In Environment and Behavior, Vol. 8.1, p. 7-‐29. Bellal, T. (2007), ‘Spatial Interface between Inhabitants and Visitors in M’Zab Houses’, In Proceedings, 6th

International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul: ITU Faculty of Architecture, 061-‐01 – 061-‐14. Chermayeff, S. and Alexander, C. (1963), Community and Privacy, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Desai, M., Desai, M., Lang, J. (2012), The Bungalow in Twentieth –Century India, The cultural Expression of

Changing Ways of Life and Aspirations in the Domestic Architecture of Colonial and Post-‐colonial Society, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., England.

Franca, F. and Holanda, F. (2003), ‘My bedroom, my world: Domestic space between modernity and tradition’. In: Hanson, J. (ed), Proceedings of the Fourth International Space Syntax Symposium, London, p. 24.1-‐ 24.10.

Franca, F. and Holanda, F. (2009), ‘Indiscipline Which Transforms Architecture: Appropriations of Domestic Space in the Federal District’. In: Koch, D., Marcus, L., and Steen, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology, 033:1-‐033:14

Girhe, K. (2004), Architecture of Bhoslas of Nagpur, Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, Vol.1 (Text and Plates). Gupta, R. (2013), The Courtyard Wada of Maharashtra, New Delhi: A NIASA Publication, Council of Architecture. Hanson, J. (1998), Decoding Homes and Houses, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hillier, B., Hanson, J. and Graham, H. (1987), ‘Ideas are in Things: an Application of the Space Syntax Method to

Discovering House Genotypes’. In Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 14, p. 363-‐385. Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984), The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kotharkar, R. and Deshpande, R. (2012), ‘Comparative Study of Transformations in Traditional House Form: The

Case of Nagpur Region, India’. In ISVS e-‐journal, Vol. 2 (2), p. 17-‐33. Lawrence, R.J. (1987), Housing Dwelling and Homes; Design Theory, Research and Practice, Chichester: John

Wiley & Sons Ltd. Manum, B., (2009), ‘The Advantage of Generality: Dwellings’ Potential for Housing Different Ways of Living’. In:

Koch, D., Marcus, L., and Steen, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology, 069:1-‐069:13.

Rapoport, A., (1969), House Form and Culture, Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, USA. Robinson, J. (2001), ‘institutional Space, Domestic Space, and Power Relations: Revisiting territoriality with

space syntax’. In: Peponis, J., Wineman, J. and Bafna, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Space syntax Symposium, Atlanta, U.S.A: Georgia Institute of Technology, p. s 2.1-‐ s 2.10.

Toker, U. and Toker, Z. (2003), ‘Family structure and spatial configuration in Turkish house form in Anatolia from late nineteenth century to late twentieth century’. In: Hanson, J. (ed), Proceedings of the Fourth International Space Syntax Symposium, London, p. 55 and 55.1-‐55.16.

Trigueiro, E. B. F., Are Colonial Sobrados: seen-‐one-‐seen-‐them-‐all Buildings?, In Cadernos, PROARQ 19.

Date post:	03-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

SSS10 Proceedings 002...SSS10Proceedings+of+the10th+International+SpaceSyntax+Symposium++...

Documents