Author's Statement

SHARE SYSTEMS. A Prototype for Making Family

Canada is rich with an ethnic, cultural and linguistic mix from more than 200 countries of origin. We are largely foreigners in this land, choosing to make it our own. Many have come in search of new opportunities, freedom and safety; each bringing a wealth of knowledge, memories, customs and histories. According to Charles Taylor, the building of a democratic Canadian society “requires a politics that leaves room for us to deliberate publicly about those aspects of our identities that we share, or potentially share with other citizens. A society that recognizes individual identity will be a deliberative , democratic society because individual identity is partly constituted by collective dialogues”. We are part of a young nation that enjoys both the particularities and the peculiarities, of each new culture. It is in the confrontation and clashing of cultural elements that new things can begin. The unfamiliar and uncomfortable moments --what we call “awkward”-- are often hastily avoided despite the fact that they could represent a new type of possibility, a different type of growth. What better place to begin understanding the potential of these times than in the fundamental unit of the house, the home, the family.

I am now Canadian, having spent one third of my life in India, one third in Oman and one third in Canada. I am not alone in what I bring to this country -- this is the norm. I have had many homes in Canada: one that I shared with my immigrant family of grandmother, parents and sister, another where I lived with seven students, once strangers now friends, with backgrounds from Trinidad, the Philippines, small town Ontario, Israel, Shanghai, and El-Salvador, and lastly my student apartment where I lived alone. The constant shift between living with family, friends and on my own has changed me; I make my own family.

This thesis examines, predictively as well as descriptively, emerging living systems that strengthen the growing demographic of culturally diverse “chosen” families. Dwelling units have been more commonly understood as housing provided for 1, 2, 4, or 100 people: the studio apartment for the bachelor, a semi-detached home for the couple, a single family suburban home for the young family or an apartment block for seniors. With a few variations, this has been the general theme. In the light of the emerging reality of the “chosen” family, there appears to be room for a prototype that encourages 7-12 people to live together in one unit. These are distressed times, both financially and socially, where seniors are lonely, young families struggle without household help and middle-aged couples still pay large mortgages in their “empty nest” homes. We cope. Seniors move into annexes of their children’s homes, two young families share responsibilities, and middle-aged couples wish they could sell their properties to move into a joint home with friends. This is happening all around us, and much could be done to provide the infrastructure to both accommodate and encourage the shift.The codependency of “chosen” families is crucial in strengthening individuality and community, thus maintaining self identity while reducing alienation.

This is an experiment.

Tentative Outline

SHARE SYSTEMS. A prototype for making family

Title

Author’s Statement

Abstract

Executive Summary

Outlining terms and the Phenomenological Method

The realities of the multicultural experience: Who we are and what we bring

Table of Contents / List of Illustrations

PART ONE: Think

Making Contemporary Families

“Yours and Mine” Cross-cultures: Japan, India, Europe

Learning from the joint family

Belonging and Alienation

Awkward Living Systems

Balancing Privacy and Exposure, Secret and Spectacle

Obsessing about Interiority

The Un-Private House

Surveillance and Responsibility

Shared Spaces: Benefits and Problems

PART TWO: Learn

Ontario

Single family home conversions and statistics: Financial and Social Implications

Typologies between the house and the apartment: Scale and Program

Emerging Living Systems

Architectural Elements and Forms

Section

Building for the : Individual+Stranger/ Individual+Family/ Family+Stranger

Interface : Identifying Thresholds, Barriers, Markers

Material, Distance, Orientation, Levels, Movement, Duration of stay

PART THREE: Experiment

Cambridge Case Study

The Midsize Town Condition

Students and Seniors: Housing Prototype

The 7-12 person unit

Design Proposal

Conclusions

Appendices

Bibliography

M1 Reviews

PART ONE: Awkward Living Systems

Tracing the new dialect of “yours and mine” in Canada’s multicultural society, the following report is a

culmination of literary ideas and design explorations that examine the shifting lines between private and

public space at the different scales of contemporary everyday life. Each is a further investigation into architecture’s delineation of those spaces that frame communal as well as individual identity in every culture and especially at the intersection of cultures.

The “awkward” need not be uncomfortable, but rather can be embraced, for it represents the interface of that which is alien to one culture but familiar to another. Perhaps it embraces a new series of moments in architecture that heighten the varying perceptions of privacy and exposure , that eventually creates a new medium to realize a sense of identity. By playing with the notion of isolation and belonging; seclusion and integration, each exercise will reconstruct a stimulating experience of space, place and meaning where there was none.

( Author's Statement)

(Panel 1)

INDIVIDUAL + FAMILY. Our families no longer consist of mother, father and son, instead we have grandmother, mother, and daughter. Three individuals that still cling to the nostalgia of the familial unit. We live together because it is convenient, affordable and comforting. Learning from the Mobius House, the form of this compact dwelling is manipulated to accommodate three distinct individuals, each with their own schedules, their own requirements and demands. The form of the compact house follows the intertwining trajectory relating to a 24-hour lifestyle of work, play and sleep with only a few moments to meet and greet each other. The section allows for a palpable awarness between private and public by the warping of party walls that create interlocking shared space. Circulation space in the house are flattened into a series of screens that become a negotiating medium between “yours and mine”. The importance of maintaining a visual connection through the rooms become the primary tool that allows individuals to retain their privacy and strengthen community.

The traditional living room is now the study - where talking has been replaced by typing and storey telling is referenced by gmail. The study and the kitchen are the places to gather. The single family house becomes a amalgamated form of two apartments. This isn’t a novel idea as housing typologies in other cultures usually include annexes for the joint family or separate living quarters for servants. Mother and daughter share the bottom floor while grandmother lives on the third floor. By establishing a sense of independence and privacy required by each individual , the house becomes a flexible system of units that maintain their own entrances but are joined at the core. Allowing for the choice of being alone, or being together.

(Panel 2)

FAMILY + STRANGER. The house is a perch; a temporary resting place for a family to grow. The design of this dwelling is particularly interested in inventing new hierarchies; other types of relationships rather than purely narrative spaces that have a beginning and an end. Attempting to design ‘situations’ rather than designating one room per person and making common rooms an after thought, the house imagines spaces to weave into each other, become private around a corner or public when open to the courtyard. Movement and Gesture play a crucial role in the form of the architecture; both filter sporadically rather than be designated as “circulation” space. Public and private become relational and contingent rather than absolute. Both can occur anywhere. Privacy is generated by withdrawing from company and th public is confronted by interaction. The home becomes a retreat and the family finds privacy in spaces like the library and not necessarily the bedroom.

The residents of the house (whom are treated in this experiment as one unit) interact with the ‘stranger’ who visits the site. Traditionally the ground floor of homes are the most public zones , and at each raised level the rooms are more exclusive and private. This house experiments with allowing the public to move fluidly through every level of occupation. Thus it adopts a double spiral form, one for private living the other for public platforms. The structure of the house becomes the tool which mediates between what is exposed and what is hidden. Walls render rooms independent or shared with crafted openings. Instantly they become both connected and independent of each other.

(Panel 3)

INDIVDUAL + STRANGER. This is the most abstract version of what the house is meant to be. It deals with raw confrontation and heightens extremely awkward moments between the occupants of the site. The site becomes one large piece of structure which makes the levels of privacy of the units within the house ambiguous. The lack of orientation allows each occupant or visitor of the site to deal directly with the wall beside them at each moment; by understanding the position they are standing in, who is watching them, who is beside them, then only can the individual understand the concept of the house.

In our egocentric society based on the discourse of “I”, we are still not afraid to show and tell. The project places programs such as bathrooms in very publicly viewed locations, however a physical distance remains which gives the illusion of privacy.

HOUSE 2

Author, Site, 2009

"House 2" is interested in inventing new hierarchies; other types of relationships rather than purely narrative spaces that have a beginning and an end. I am learning to design 'situations' rather than designating one room per person and making common rooms an after thought.

Author, Plans, 2009

1. Highly differentiated and intricately woven spaces
2. Movement filters rather than designating "circulation" space
3. Public+ Private are relational and contingent rather than absolute. Both can occur anywhere. Privacy is generated by withdrawing from company and Public is confronted by interaction.
4. Privacy. Becomes a "retreat", in this case, the library and not necessarily the bedroom.
5. Public. Family, Friend, and Stranger are addressed and movement is choreographed on every level.
6. Walls are rendered independent rooms together with crafted openings. Indecently they become both connected and independent of each other.

Author, Remembering Scenes, 2009