1

HOUSE OR HOME?Abbie Sobik

A R C O 1 3

?ho

use

or h

ome

colla

ge: b

y A

bbie

Sob

ik

3

HOUSE OR HOME?Abbie Sobik

House or home? The difference is small yet significant. This document explores the many different aspects that are related to the ‘home’. Within this text, theories of home are explored based on an extended review of literature. They are studied and compared to each other as well as primary research that has been undertaken on what ‘home’ means to others.

The home is considered to have a strong relationship with consumption. This document reflects upon the role of domestic consumption in the construction of individual and col-lective identities. Acquisition and use of objects is also discussed when considering how a psychological attachment is formed between the owner and possessions.

The influence of the architect is examined with reference to case studies. It is queried whether the material and architectural attributes have an affect on what structures can be made into a home. In conclusion, this document proposes that ‘home’ is a psychological as well as a physical term built upon many elements one of which may be a house.

House or Home?

This document will explore the difference between the meanings of house and home. According to the Oxford Dictionary the house is defined as “a building for human habitation, one that is lived in by a family or small group of people”1 and a home as “the place of residence where one lives permanently especially as a member of a family or household.”2 Although these are very similar and do not give a clear distinction there is a noticeable difference. It suggests that a house is a built form that contains your belongings where as a home is where you live your life and an emotional connection takes place. As the ‘home’ is so familiar, it has many different aspects to define and research. Each of these aspects will be examined to help understand what creates this emotional connection to define what a ‘home’ is and what it means to others.

The ‘home’ is an extremely subjective topic and has been studied by many. The first chapter, The Place of Home will assess the existing theories highlighting what it is that they consider establishes a home. The theorists that are studied include Martin Heidegger, Edward Relph, Reyner Banham and Mary Douglas. They each have conflicting ideas of the home that touch upon the topics of place attachment, consumption and practice. A questionnaire will also be conducted as an extension to my research that will allow me to find out what the word ‘home’ means to the general public. The results may reiterate the beliefs of the theorists or contradict them; whichever will ultimately help me conclude the statement in question.

It is argued that the ‘home’ is imaged on many different levels, it is known in terms of location, material, furnishing and services. The role of consumption on domestic dwellings is explored in order to establish if it has a significant impact on deciphering the difference between house and home.

Within this chapter it is questioned how consumption can construct and become a representation of individual identity, as well as collective meaning. Acquisition and use of objects are both looked at when discussing how psychological attachments are made and the importance of having these familiar possessions in ones environment. Through this exploration of consumption, cultural issues are also raised discussing how cultural identity provides a collective sense of permanency and security.

The final chapter of the document will explore the role of the architect in the construction of a ‘home’. It is more often than not the architect who has control over the material and architectural attributes of a built form. To understand if these attributes have any impact on what buildings can become a home or not the work of architects such as Le Corbuiser and

1 ‘Compact Oxford English Dictionary’ [online] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/house?q=house [10th November 2012]2 ‘Compact Oxford English Dictionary’ [online] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english home?q=home [10th November 2012]

HOUSE OR HOME: Abbie Sobik

5

Herman Hertzberger are compared. Each of which allow different degrees of contingency to occur to their buildings. This resulted in the exploration of how the architect’s perception of home may influence the way in which they design domestic structures. Participatory design and expandable housing is also discussed assessing the possibilities of how the building can become an extension of the inhabitants. All of which helps investigate how an emotional attachment can be formed with a built environment.

Time is another component that is present throughout the document. As mentioned the home is considered as a permanent aspect in an individuals life. Over time can any place become a home? The above aspects will provide me with a greater understanding of the different factors to consider when drawing my own conclusion.

The Place of Home

There are many theories on the subject of home; one of which is the aspect of place attachment that is signified by terms such as ‘at-homeness’ and ‘rootedness’.3 Martin Heidegger believes that buildings are single phenomenon’s that are created by the individual’s consciousness out of its rootedness in culture, time and place.4 Place attachment is often defined as ‘an affective bond or link between people and specific places’.5 This is often by memory through three component areas, affect which concerns the emotional attachment, cognition that is the perception of the place and practice which involves the behaviours and activities that take place in that particular context.6 For Heidegger it is clear that one can occupy buildings daily but not feel at home in them.

“Bridges and hanger, stadiums and power stations are buildings but not dwellings; railway stations and highways, dams and market halls are built, but they are not dwelling places [...] The truck driver is at home on the highway, but he does not have his shelter there; the working women is at home in the spinning mill, but does not have her dwelling place there; the chief engineer is at home in the power station, but he does not dwell there. These buildings house man. He inhabits them and yet does not dwell in them.”7

3 Elena Windsong. “A Mixed Method Analysis of Home Ownership and Place Attachment” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, Aug 08, 2009) <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p306572_index.html>4 Barbara Lane. ‘Housing and Dwelling: Perspectives on Modern Domestic Architecture’’ (Oxon; Routledge, 2007) p. 50.5 M. C Hidalgo, B. Hernández ‘Place attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, (2001), 273–281 (p. 274)6 G.T Kyle, A.J Mowen, M Tarrant ‘Linking Place Reference with Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relation-ship between Place Motivation and Place Attachment’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 439-454 (p.439)7 Adam Sharr. ‘Heidegger for Architects’, (London, Routledge, 2007) p. 38.

Edward Relph agrees with Heidegger when he identifies the importance of roots and believes that they give people a point of view, with a spiritual and emotional attachment to a specific place. Relph states, “To be attached to places and have profound ties with them is an important human need.”8 He developed the idea of ‘insideness’, which incorporated the ‘degree of attachment, involvement, and concern, that a person or group has for a particular place.’9 Relph suggested that the more profoundly inside a place the person feels, the stronger his or her identity with that place. Relph understands that insideness and sense of place is “being inside and belonging to your place both as an individual and as a member of a community, and to know this without reflecting upon it.”10 The connection between people and place is one that forms over time. The longer you are within a particular environment the stronger ones sense of place will become.

In juxtaposition to these, Reyner Banham looks at how the modern home is a set of modern appliances and services not bound to any location and therefore essentially rootless.

“When your house contains such a complex of piping, flues, ducts, wires, lights, inlets, outlets, ovens, sinks, refuse disposers, hi-fi reverberators, antennae, conduits, freezers, heaters – when it contains so many services that the hardware could stand up by itself without any assistance from the house, why have a house to hold it up?”11

This also implies that there is no need for shelter as the services themselves create it. Banhams observations are of a utopian nature as he implies he wants “to give everyone a standard of living package containing all the necessities of modern life and to do away with all the permanent structures of building, and men would not be constrained by past settlements.”12

8 E. Relph. ‘Place and Placelessness’ (London, Pion Limited 1976) pp. 38.9 Ibid. pp. 51-55.10 Ibid. p. 65.11 Reyner Banham, “A Home Is not a House,” illustrated by François Dallegret, in William W. Branham, Jonathan A. Hale. ‘Rethinking Technology: A Reader in Architectural Theory’ (Oxon, Routledge, 2007) p. 168.12 Charles Jencks, ‘Architecture 2000 and Beyond: Success in the Art of Prediction’, (Michigan Wiley-Academy, 2000) p. 59.

HOUSE OR HOME?: Abbie Sobik

7

Figure 1 depicts the illustration by Francois Dallegret of Banhams theory of the transportable ‘standard of living package’.13 It was designed to allow anyone “the power to impose his will on any environment to which the package could be delivered; to enjoy the spatial freedom of the nomadic campfire without the smell, smoke, ashes and mess; and the luxuries of appliance and without those encumbrances of a permanent dwelling.”14 This ‘living package’ is also pictured within an ‘environmental bubble’15 in a similar manner to how Frank Lloyd Wright suggests that the home should be centered around the ‘hearth’ in the Prairie Style.16

Banhams idea fits when considering those who are less fortunate and do not have a house to make home. A homeless person carries all their personal belongings around with them at all times, whether it is in plastic bags or a shopping cart. It is these possessions that allow them to survive and carry out their day-to-day lives. ‘When these possessions are unburdened do they lay claim to some space? It gives the impression that these possessions are physical markers to an area that is ‘yours’. Houses are considered to be fairly permanent structures so in this case this does not fit as homeless people often move from one location to another.’17 When placing familiar objects in a place we do not know it immediately appears more familiar.18

It implies there is an emotional attachment to the belongings compared to Banhams appliances being there to serve a purpose. The belongings are often all they own so they have value to the individual, perhaps there is even an emotional connection to keeping, maintaining, even relocation of the belongings from ‘home’ to ‘home’.

Another view on the home is the one of Mary Douglas. She suggests that home is a place where households organise themselves over time by practicing the planning of resources and by developing households rituals.19 The home is a key site of social organisation of space. It is the understanding of the everyday and the repetition that occurs over time that her idea is based on. “…home starts by bringing some space under control… home is not only a space, it also has some structure in time; and because it is for people who are living in time and space, it has aesthetic and moral dimensions.”20 Deborah Lupton’s theories agrees that it is the structure of daily routine such as the importance of shared meals or

13 Reyner Banham, “A Home Is not a House,” illustrated by François Dallegret, in William W. Braham, Jonathan A. Hale, John Stanislav Sadar. ‘Rethinking Technology’ (UK, Taylor & Francis, 2007) p. 170. 14 Ibid. p. 171.15 Ibid. p. 172.16 H Koning, J Eizenberg, ‘The Language of the Prairie: Frank Lloyd Wrights Prairie House’ Environment and Planning, 14 December 1981, pp.295-323, p.296.17 Bob Borson, Designation between House and Home Life of an Architect [online] (2010) http://www.lifeofan-architect.com/the-designation-between-house-and-home, [accessed 28 Novemeber] 18 Neil Leach, Camouflage, (London, MIT, 2006) p. 4.19 Barbara Miller Lane. Housing and Dwelling: Perspectives on Modern Domestic Architecture (London, Rout-ledge, 2007) p. 54-68.20 Ibid. p. 62.

1. Landscape Floodlamps2. Exchangeable Power Packs3. Stereo Speakers4. TV Screen5. Disc and Tape Playdock6. AM - FM and TV Reciever7. Airblast for Environmental Control8. Refrigerator Unit9. Electric Cooker10. Solar Power Collectors11. Hinge

1.

2.34.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

11.

Figu

re 1

, ‘Tr

ansp

orta

ble

Sta

ndar

d of

Liv

ing

Pac

kage

’: by

Abb

ie S

obik

HOUSE OR HOME: Abbie Sobik

9

spending time in the evenings together has a significant impact in joining the `family’ and producing a `familial identity’.21 These activities will also create memories which will recall the place, people and possessions involved.

When reading about the home, I did not entirely agree with any of the theories mentioned above. Personally home has many meanings, for me there are two aspects to it. First, there is my personal home - this is where I live at the time with all my possessions. It is where I am free to do as I please and where I am able to be most comfortable. This is viable to change as my needs alter. The second meaning is related to my personal history and family. This is where I grew up and have many fond memories, it will forever be considered as my home. For me, this sense of home is not confined to one location. This therefore made me think of how others individuals perceive ‘home’ as they are just as important as those published, so I conducted a questionnaire asking people of varying age and gender.

The thought of family and loved ones was a common element between many of the individuals asked that connected them to home. “Where the people that I love and who love me the most are”22 is one of the answers from the questionnaire that suggests that wherever their family is, is considered as home, regardless of location. “Home is where I am with the people and things that make me happy.”23 Again the relationship of others is mentioned as well as belongings yet place is not mentioned. Douglas is the only theorist that touched upon others within the households through daily routine, as it is the interaction between people and objects that she concerns to be the factors that produce a home. The well-known proverb ‘home is where the heart is’ could be applied to either a person or a place, but whichever it may be, implies that there is an emotional attachment.

Others questioned mentioned the way in which they feel when they are in the space. For example one interviewee stated “Home is where I feel I belong, where I can be myself without fear or care.”24 This corresponds with Relphs idea of ‘insideness’. It is considered a safe sanctuary from the rest of the world; the structure of the dwelling provides the boundaries between commonality of the public and the uniqueness of the private realms. The house is a controlled environment under the influence of the occupiers and therefore is separate to what is beyond their control in the public areas.

The results of the interviews are consistent with the ideas of the theorists. The indivuals questioned each had different perceptions of home often consisting of two or more elements involving the interaction between place, possessions and people proving the knowledge that home is a personal topic where there are psychological dimensions and is not just a physical response.

21 Gill Valentine. ‘Eating in: Home, Consumption and Identity.’ The Sociological Review, 47, (August 1 1999), pp. 491-524. (p.493).22 Quote attained from questionnaire. [attained 17 December]23 Quote attained from questionnaire. [attained 17 December]24 Ibid.

House to Home

Within this chapter the idea that belongings are the main elements that create a home is expanded. Exploration of the alternative meanings and functions of home-directed consumption, in particular those aspects of consumption that have to do with presentation and appearance - fittings, furnishings and decor. There are recent debates on whether or not it is the objects and belongings within the buildings that allow self expression through consumption, allowing them to express their identity and make it a home rather than a house.

It is Lefebvre that says the ‘home’ has a very strong relationship to the consumption of its occupier.25 This is because it allows the occupiers to make it theirs, and put their own identity on it. There have been many sociological accounts on the creation of self-identity through consumption. Home consumption is primarily associated with the purchasing and displaying of furniture and other domestic goods. On the other hand Miller stresses that specific goods need not directly “symbolize person or identity. Shopping is an active praxis which intervenes and constitutes as well as referring back to relationships.”26 Therefore the praxis of home consumption may not be simply reflective of an individual consuming, but also have the potential to mold relationships between individuals in the home. James Carrier concurs with this as he states ‘where people shop and the ways they shop can be important for changing those things from impersonal commodities to possessions that embody the shopper’s identity and location in a web of personal relationships.’27

Within the house there are objects that range from purely functional to aesthetic or decorative. Despite what the type of object, theorists of consumption tend to accentuate the acquisition of the object rather than use and have, consequently underestimating the work, the skills and the social relations involved not just in shopping but also in the practiced related activities of using, making and doing.

Through the latter part of the twentieth century, the purchase of furniture was seen to be the responsibility of a female consumer, and the notion of homemaking remained highly gendered although stereotypical. It is the role of the women to manage the home, and take responsibility for day-to-day consumption needs.28 Although it is the wife or mother that is doing the shopping it is not done without thought of the other members of the family, rather than being a simple momentary act of purchase it “is a social process whereby people related to goods and artefacts in complex ways, transforming their meanings as they

25 Henri Lefebvre. The Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,1991) pp. 337-340.26 Suzanne Reimer, Deborah Leslie. ‘Identity, Consumption and the Home’, in Home Cultures, (Berg Publish-ers, 2004) 187-208 (p.189).27 James G Carrier. Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism Since 1700 (Psychology Press, 1995) p.15.28 Alison Ravetz, Richard Turkington. The Place of Home. English Domestic Environments 1914-2000 (Oxford: The Alden Press, 1995) pp.167-175.

HOUSE OR HOME: Abbie Sobik

11

incorporate them into their lives.”29 As suggested the home ‘is a site of individual, but also collective consumption, where the goods purchased and the meanings and uses ascribed to them are negotiated, and sometimes contested, between household members.’30 Therefore the final outcome of home consumption was meant to represent a collective identity. When furniture is bought it is often negotiated between the individuals concerned and can come to represent and negotiate identity. It is said that the furniture can reveal the identity of its residents.

DIY is another aspect that plays a large part in creating a home. Steven Gelber argues that it gives the male a role around the house, which in turn makes them feel needed in what is perceived as a female domain. “The very ambiguity of do-it-yourself as at once leisure and work, and the centrality of the tools and skills required, have proved important in positioning DIY as a legitimate arena in which men can respond to the expectations that the should play a more active role in the home.”31 By doing work yourself around the house, the sense of achievement and satisfaction is attained creating a stronger connection between the ownership to the structure of the house. To be able to do work yourself allows you to amend your property to your preferences at your will and often at a cheaper expense. Later in the document it is discussed which practitioners design with the intention for alterations to take place to the building.

As mentioned before Reyner Banham believes that it is the appliances that create the home rather than being the products consumed within the home, John Seeley agrees with this and has argued that furniture should be seen as the most important element in individual understandings of home, he states “it is really the movables which create the air of homeliness, and which are psychologically immovable, rather than the physically rooted house.”32 Heidegger also argues that an object should be thought “as a thing and never mere object”33 he suggests that his idea of the thing is something much more than an object.

Louise Schouwenberg studies the sentiment of these objects. It is suggested that within these objects memory of nostalgia is embedded.34 Through everyday, marks of wear and tear remind us of personal histories and events which have occurred and strengthen the attachment to the object. She deconstructs a selection of objects to better understand their materials and method of fabrication to then reconstruct them. The idea of reusing ‘throwaway’ objects and re-appropriating them to give them a secondary life, so the sentiment is not lost, giving them a new function around the household without losing the

29 Alison Goodrum The National Fabric: Fashion, Britishness, Globalization (London, Berg, 2005) p. 31.30 Gill Valentine, ‘Eating in: Home, Consumption and Identity.’ The Sociological Review, 47, (August 1 1999), pp. 491-524. (p.492).31 Elizabeth Shove. The Design of Everyday Life, (London, Berg, 2008) p.50.32 Seeley, A. Sim and E. W. Loosley. Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban Life (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1956) p. 58.33 Adam Sharr. Heidegger for Architects (London, Routledge, 2007) p. 29.34 Lois Weinthal. Toward a New Interior (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2011) p.146.

Figu

re 2

, Col

lage

of 1

950’

s A

dver

tisem

ent f

or th

e ‘D

o it

Your

self’

Mag

azin

e: b

y A

bbie

Sob

ik

13

sentiment that is embedded in them.35 Andrew Blauvelt observes the relationship between lifestyle and consumer culture through the everyday. He represents a lifestyle and responds to countless issue charged with nostalgia, technology, mass production and craft.36 Many who write on the topic of consumption have mentioned technology advancements.

“Technology has affected not only the fabrication of objects but also our lifestyle. Our dependence on technology to make us mobile and fast reinforces our no commitment to objects, and people no longer need context-bound objects.”37

Schouwenberg believes that even the material of the object can affect what degree people form sensate and emotional attachment. As technology has advanced, the ability to mass produce has been made possible creating many identical units cheaply. It is thought because of this that there is less emotional attachment to these objects as they are seen as being easily replaceable, much like anything at this present time compared to hand crafted pieces.

Fashion is another element that has increased the chances of objects to be replaced more often. “The compulsion to conform underpins all human behaviour. We human beings are governed by trend.”38 With the use of technology, advertisement is present everywhere, whether it is on the television, in magazines or on the side of a bus, it reaches us in both public and private realms. Advertisement often portrays the newest of developments that are the most fashionable of items compelling us to buy them. It is in our nature to want the best, often when buying an object, you choose something that you like aesthetically over something functional, as you have made an emotional choice based on desire rather than thinking about it logically. The purchase of these objects originally bought as an act of individual expression does in fact become an act of collective behaviour.

IKEA is an iconic store that designs and sells ready-to-assemble furniture. It is a company that has arisen with the help of technology. The products are mass produced on a global scale yet the act of assembling them creates a sentimental attachment. There may not have been much of a financial investment but the time invested in the construction gives greater rewards.

“IKEA offers a wide range of well-designed, functional home furnishing products at prices so low that as many people as possible will be able to afford them. This is the idea at the heart of everything IKEA does, from product development and purchases

35 Louise Schouwenberg ‘For the love of Things’ in Lois Weinthal. Toward a New Interior (New York, Princeton36 Andrew Blauvelt ‘Strangely familiar: Design and Everyday Life’ in Lois Weinthal. Toward a New Interior (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2011) pp.163-174.37 Louise Schouwenberg ‘For the love of Things’ in Lois Weinthal. Toward a New Interior (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2011) p.191.38 Neil Leach, Camouflage, (London, MIT, 2006) p.3.

Figu

re 3

, IK

EA

Adv

ertis

men

t: by

Abb

ie S

obik

15

to how we sell our products in IKEA stores globally.”39

IKEA advertisements promote the importance of home depicting the everyday family activities that take place within the structure and shows the interaction that occurs between the inhabitants and the objects. The actions portrayed and perceptions conceived from them are considered to be just as important as advertising their products.

In this case, identity is the main cause for consumption within the home. As mentioned above, the buying of objects reflect individual as well as combined identities, this primarily occurs within the private realm of the structure for personal benefit as an act of creating a home. However, the home can also be considered as a representation of cultural identity and provides a collective sense of social permanency and security.40 Langer agrees when states “architecture can also present the largest metaphors of society and religion; it can project meanings about life and death and eschatology into the everyday arrangements that it covers.”41

When consumption occurs on the outside of the house it becomes public and is visible to others, it then becomes a social indication of who may live in the house. “The house objectifies the vision the occupants have of themselves in the eyes of others and as such it becomes an entity and process to live up to, give time to, show off to”42 The way in which you may decorate or maintain your house will give an indication of how you want others to perceive you.

This consumption is dependent on the ownership of the property. In Britain over the 1980s the ‘right to buy’ housing policy was introduced with the incentive for renters to buy their rental homes from the authorities.43 Social housing is often attached to bad opinions and perceived as rougher areas. Those who bought their houses instantly sought out how to distinguish their façade from the alike neighbours and went through the transformation of making public housing into an individual home. ‘The ‘homeowner’ and ‘tenant’ is one of the dominant schisms in our culture with the tenant being subordinate to the owners in terms of material structure of power and resources.’44 The purchase of a house often represents great expenditure. The alterations and decoration express national divide between the owners and the renters.

39 IKEA, <http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/about_ikea/the_ikea_way/index.html> [accessed 4 February 2013]40 Tony Chapman ‘There’s No Place Like Home’, Theory, Culture & Society, 18 (December 2001) 135-146, (p.6).41 Mary Douglas, ‘The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space’, Social Research: An International Quarterly Home: A Place in the World, Volume 58, No. 1 (Spring 1991): 294.42 Daniel Miller Home Possessions, Material Culture behind Closed Doors (Oxford, Berg, 2001) p. 42.43 John. Dolan ‘I’ve Always Fancied Owning me Own Lion’: Ideological Motivations in External House Decoration by Recent Homeowners’ in Irene Cieraad At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space. (Syracuse University Press, New York, 1999) p.63.44 Ibid. p.62.

The home is an active realm in both time and space in the creation of individual identity, social relations and collective meaning through consumption. Consumption whether it occurs within or on the exterior of the house contributes to the production of the home for that individual.

Whose House?

Consumption is a process that takes place by both architect and occupier. Consumerism is a key aspect affecting the production of buildings; different types of building production have different degrees of relationship to consumerism. When designing a building, it is primarily the architect who takes responsibility for the consumption of the building when developing the aesthetics of it. When creating a home it is the occupier who becomes the architect. Although the building is structurally complete, in order to make it suitable for everyday living, it is the occupier who establishes what is important to them and is able to personalise it to make it comfortable to suit their needs.

Loss of identity has arisen from the industrialised world of today. Due to mass production and economic reasons, buildings have grown in scale that in turn seems to increase our sense of unfamiliarity, which is a factor to identity, rather than offer the sense of home. These technological developments continued to influence architects’ designs. The characteristics of a modern house are the adoption of the machine aesthetic, materials and functional requirements determine the final product, emphasis of horizontal lines, express the structure of the building, rejection of ornamentation, the simplification of form and elimination of ‘unnecessary detail’ and the most enduring, and most quoted rule of all: Form follows function.45 As well as aesthetically, Le Corbusier states that the house itself “is a machine for living in”46 which suggests that it is there for one purpose only. Despite the architects’ best interest to create a house fit to live in and make the everyday easier, modern houses don’t often appear comforting and tend to lack personality, which is in contrast to the initial concepts of modern home.

Most architectural images of residential structures look as if they are staged. In juxtaposition to the intent of the IKEA advertisement the intent of architectural photography is often to depict the ideal conditions, the perfect placement of objects, and staged imagery, rather than capturing how a space is used. It is therefore hard to imagine how your day-to-day activities would take place within the space. This need to conform does not only occur to the items within the structure, but the structure itself. Although pictures of architecture and spatial characteristics of the structure are idyllic, we aspire to have what we see. We create a vision of ourselves living this idealised lifestyle, and then behave in ways that help us to realise the vision. Within this picture there is no evidence of human beings living in the

45 ‘Modern Architects Defining Characteristics’ [Online] http://distinctbuild.ca/modern_architecture_defining_char-acteristics.php [10th November 2012]46 Le Corbusier. Toward an Architecture (London, Frances Lincoln Ltd, 2008) p. 151.

HOUSE OR HOME?: Abbie Sobik

17

suit the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and to mechanical things.”47 The modulor was designed with the intention of it being used as a guide in the design process. This modulor was used in many of his designs one of which was residential, l’Unite d’Habitation at Marseilles. Although it was designed as “a tool that makes the good easy and the bad difficult”48 it was built upon the idealisation of man and the assumption that one size fits all. Women were belatedly considered and rejected which for the time at which it was created, where women were very much connected to the home was impertinent as it would not be suitable for them, therefore making the activities taking place much harder. There is a blatant ignorance of actual human proportions and variety between the genders as well and nationalities.

This raises the question of whether or not buildings should be individually designed for the occupier. It is the dream of many to build their own house and in this case, each aspect of design can be specifically built with them in mind. Wright believes that this should be the case when he declares, “There should be as many kinds of houses as there are kinds of people and as many differentiations as there are different individuals. A man who has individuality has a right to its expression in his own environment.”49 This is in complete contrast to what Le Corbusier proposes with the modulor man and suggests that it is bad praxis if the occupier is not considered as an individual.

“To let individual elements arise and shine at the expense of final response is, for the architect, a betrayal of trust for building are the background or framework for the human life within their walls and a foil for the nature efflorescence without.”50

This is much harder when considering large developments such a social housing. ‘Social housing is a basic need to rapidly growing societies and a challenge to authorities to provide shelter to low-income population. Many contemporary efforts have been spent to achieve residential satisfaction considering social housing as a very standardised basic need. Architecture with such strategies lacks the essence that could replace what was once considered as dwelling.’51 Dwelling in the understanding of not simply providing a shelter but a place where it can evolve with its people’s needs and individual changes. To mass-produce a house means to build the same model many times in order for it to be useful to many people. This is often the case with social housing as it works out cheaper for the construction, but results in each unit is identical to the next. As mentioned earlier the occupier therefore feels the need to put his or her own ‘stamp’ on the place and make it theirs, yet being a rented property there are limitations to what is allowed.

47 Steen E, Rasmussen. Experiencing Architecture, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1959) p. 118.48 William Wiles, ‘Modulor Man’, ICON, 65. (November 2008). 49 Frank Lloyd Wright In the Cause of Architecture: Essays by Frank Lloyd Wright (1908) p.55.50 Frank Lloyd Wright, On Architecture: Selected Writing (Duel, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1941) p. 41.51 Yara Saifi, Hulya Yuceer and Betul Bilge, 2012. ‘Flexible Social Housing as an Alternative to Mass-produced Housing in the Walled City of Famagusta’. Journal of Applied Sciences, 12, (1869-1881).

space, the attributes shown of a clean house are connected to structure that suggests if you replicate it, your house will look the same despite the everyday activities.Throughout the 1940’s Le Corbusier proposed the modulor, this was the development of the dimensions of man that was devised to combine a “range of harmonious measurements to

House to Home 863

1.397

534

330

204

126

7848

267

165

432

698

1,130

1,829

432

698

432

268

102

185

63

1,130

689

432

Figu

re 4

, Le

Cor

busi

ers

Mod

ulor

Man

: by

Abb

ie S

obik

102

2.260

19

The need for personal adjustments are recognised by some architects, this results in handing over the design responsibility to the occupier and allowing them to complete the project. Jeremy Till rightly notes, “Contingency is getting rid of the idea that things may turn out differently. In architecture contingency is inevitable.”52 Some architects accept this and encourage the client to have more input into the creation of their home. Unfinished or expandable houses are buildings designed by architects but whose inhabitants conclude the process, meaning they continue to build their homes. In this case the architects can design cores or half-finished houses, planting the seed and leaving certain guidelines. It does not mean literally, physically unfinished but unfinished in the sense that it allows for the possibility of appropriation by its occupancy. Therefore a dwelling is not a finished product but is part of a process, whereby the inhabitant takes over the role of the architect. Neil Leach argues, that design can assist the process of assimilation we go through when we familiarise ourselves to the surroundings. The act of design can provide a method of connectivity between our environment and us and can contribute to a sense of belonging.53

One development that is based on this notion is Diagoon Dwellings design by Herman Hertzberger. He describes them as “in principle unfinished… the actual design should be seen as a provisional framework that must be filled in”54 With the construction of the outer shell it leaves the interior space for the personalised interpretation of the user in terms of number of rooms, positioning and functional uses. The houses are designed to provide an alternative to how dwellings are typically conceived, handing over the power of design to the occupant.

Another is the social housing development Quinta Monroy by Elemental. This type of approach to the question of social housing sees it as a “public investment rather than a public expense.”55 As the houses are added to over time, they gain value and their rather stark original design is softened through occupation and use. This allows the design to adapt perfectly to function. “The creative process was ‘organic,’ unfolding or growing from the inside out, establishing integral relationships between plan and elevation, interior space and external expression, architecture and decoration”56 Personally, these project create the best forms of homes as they expand the house’s meaning and further express the owner beyond ‘form follows function,’57 adding to the design, not fighting or detracting. As mentioned by Louise Schouwenberg in the previous chapter the sentiment of the structure through memory of nostalgia is embedded by

52 Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, MIT, 2009) 53 Neil Leach, Camouflage (London, MIT, 2006) p. 5.54 Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, MIT, 2009) p. 107.55 Elemental [online] http://www.spatialagency.net/database/why/professional/elemental [accessed 12 December 2012]56 Frank Lloyd Wright. ‘The Prairie Style: From Theory to Practice’ [online] http://www.westcotthouse.org/prairie_style.html [accessed 15 January 2013]57 Mega Jett. “Infographic: The Bauhaus, Where Form Follows Function” 16 Apr 2012. ArchDaily. [accessed 19 Feb 2013] <http://www.archdaily.com/225792>

Figu

re 5

, Dia

goon

Dw

ellin

gs, I

ndic

ates

the

Alte

ratio

ns m

ade

by In

habi

tant

s: b

y A

bbie

Sob

ik

21

contributing to your house and doing it yourself as it reinforces the connections you have with the structure. In term of this being a social housing development it may help the occupier to feel more attached to a building they do not own, in turn caring about it more and therefore will look after it as if it were theirs.

To have a successful building in which to construct a home it is crucial for the architect to understand what the clients’ desires are. I believe that a house designed for an individual in particular will suit them better compared to a house that is built upon the dimensions of a man devised to fit all. I consider that some styles of architecture are harder to make a home such as the residential buildings created in the modern movement.

Those architects who promote participatory design or expandable housing encourage the creation of a home that will be individual and meet specific requirements. When familiar with a particular building you start to assimilate yourself to that environment in such a way the built form becomes part of them. ‘Humans beings are dominated by a compulsion to return to the familiar, or, when there is nothing familiar to be found, to familiarise ourselves with the unfamiliar.’58 This may be through adopting routine and familiar strategies or placing familiar objects around the place it will gradually become more familiar over time, and could eventually grow into a home.

Conclusion

The goal of the preceding analysis was to demonstrate the complexities in the relationship between house and home. I believe that ‘house’ is a physical term while ‘home’ is more of a spiritual one. One can explain house in terms of shelter, building materials, etc. but the definition of home is more personal and changes from one person to the next. Throughout the document I have explored the aspects that are considered to contribute to the production of home. Place attachment, consumption, and architect’s influence have all been discussed.

I have shown how place attachment is a vital aspect when considering home. When thinking of home it is often a specific place and its surrounding environment that is envisaged. To feel at home involves feeling comfortable in your environment; this is not just within a built structure but can be applied on a regional and national level. Through events that occur over time, memories are created and that place will become familiar to you. This familiarity is formed over time so any environment that was once unfamiliar, will eventually appear familiar.

I strongly agree that the act of consumption contributes to the production of the home. The appropriation of objects in an environment can have the ability to make you feel more

58 Neil Leach, Camouflage (London, MIT, 2006) p. 5.

familiar within that place. As discussed domestic consumption has the aptitude to display individual as well as combined identity. This can also result in a sense of belonging to social and cultural ‘homes’.

Architecture is the backdrop for our everyday activities and the home in which we live is at the centre. It is suggested that we have the capacity to grow into our built environment, to familiarise ourselves with it, and eventually to find ourselves at home there. As for the material and architectural attributes of a structure I believe you can make any building a home over time with the help of consumption. The act of participating in the design process or partaking in the construction of your house would reinforce the connection and strengthen the bond you have with the building.

It is clear to me that memories play a large role in creating a home. It is the memories that link the different aspects; place, people and possessions. Over time, more memories are collated increasing the connection of the individual with their environment. I believe the home is multidimensional as each aspect cannot be solely responsible for creating a home as many theorist suggest but suggest that it is the culmination of all the elements outlined above which transform the house into a home.

HOUSE OR HOME?: Abbie Sobik

23

Bibliography

Books

Appadurai, Arjun. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. (Cambrige:Cambridge University Press, 1988)Banham, Reyner “A Home Is not a House,” illustrated by François Dallegret, in Branham, William W. Hale, Jonathan A. Rethinking Technology: a Reader in Architectural Theory (Oxon, Routledge, 2007) p. 167 - 175Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What happens after they’re Built. (London: Penguin Books, 1995)Brown, Nicholas, Szeman, Imre. Pierre Bourdieu: Fieldwork in Culture. (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000)Carrier, James G. Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism Since 1700 (Psychology Press, 1995)De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. 2nd edition. (California: University of California Press, 2002) Dolan, John. ‘I’ve Always Fancied Owning me Own Lion’: Ideological Motivations in External House Decoration by Recent Homeowners in Irene Cieraad, At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space. (Syracuse University Press, New York, 1999) pp.60-71, Goggin, Maureen Daly, Tobin, Beth Fowkes. Women & Things 1750-1950. (Surrey: Adhgate Publishing Ltd, 2009) pp.55-74.Goodrum, Alison. The National Fabric: Fashion, Britishness, Globalization. (London: Berg, 2005)Hill, Jonathan. Occupying Architecture: Vetween the Architect and the User. (London: Routledge, 1998)Hill, Jonathan. The Subject is Matter. (London: Routledge, 2001)Jenks, Charles. Architecture 2000 and Beyond: Success in the Art of Prediction (Michigan, Wiley-Academy, 2000)Lane, Barbara. Housing and Dwelling. (Oxon: Routeldge, 2007)Le Corbusier. Toward an Architecture. (London: Frances Lincoln Ltd, 2008) Leach, Neil. Camouflage (London: MIT, 2006)Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,1991) Miller, Daniel. Handbook of Material Culture, (Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 2006) pp. 341-354.Miller, Daniel. Home Possessions, Material Culture behind Closed Doors (Oxford: Berg, 2001)Oliver, Paul. Dwellings: The Vernacular House World Wide. (London: Phaidon Press, 2007) Ravetz, Alison, Turkington, Richard. The Place of Home. English Domestic Environments 1914-2000 (Oxford: The Alden Press, 1995)Relph, E. Place and Placelessness. (London: Pion Limited, 1976)Seeley, J., A. Sim and E. W. Loosley. Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban Life (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956)

Sharr, Adam. Heidegger for Architects. (London: Routledge, 2007)Shove, Elizabeth. The Design of Everyday Life. (London: Berg Publishers, 2008)Till, Jeremy. Architecture Depends. (Cambridge: MIT, 2009)Weinthal, Lois. Toward a New Interior (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011) pp.144 - 221Wright, Frank Lloyd. In the Cause of Architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright: essays (New York: Architectural record, 1975) Wright, Frank Lloyd, On Architecture: Selected Writings. (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1941)

Article

Borson, Bob ‘Designation between House and home’ Life of an Architect [online] (2010) http://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/the-designation-between-house-and-home, [accessed 28 November 2012]Chapman, Tony. ‘There’s No Place Like Home’ Theory Culture and Society, 18, (December 2001) 135-146Douglas, Mary. ‘The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space’, An International Quarterly Home: A Place in the World, 58 (Spring 1991) 287-307Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. ‘Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, (2001) 273–281Kyle, G.T. Mowen, A.J. Tarrant, M. ‘Linking Place Reference with Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relationship between Place Motivation and Place attachment’ Journal of environmental Psychology, 24, (2004) 213-225 Mallett, S. ‘Understanding home: A critical review of the literature’ The Sociological Review, 52, (2004) 62 - 89Reimer, Suzanne, Leslie, Deborah. ‘Identity, Consumption and the Home,’ Home Cultures. (2004) 187-208Valentine, Gill. ‘Eating in: home, consumption and identity’ The Sociological Review, 43, (1999) 491-524Wiles, William. ‘Modulor Man’ ICON, 65 (November 2008)

Online Sources

‘Compact Oxford English Dictionary’ http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/home?q=home [10 November 2012]Elemental http://www.spatialagency.net/database/why/professional/elemental [accessed 12 December 2012]Windsong, Elena. “A Mixed Method Analysis of Homeownership and Place Attachment” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, Aug 08, 2009) http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p306572_index.html [accessed 16 February 2013]Wright, Frank Lloyd. ‘The Prairie Style: From Theory to Practice’, http://www.westcotthouse.org/prairie_style.html [accessed 15 January 2013]

HOUSE OR HOME?: Abbie Sobik

25

‘Modern Architects Defining Characteristics’ http://distinctbuild.ca/modern_architecture_defining_characteristics.php [ accessed18 November 2012]

Film

How Buildings Learn Series, Stewart Brand, BBC Productions (1997) [Documentry] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0

Image References

All images by author

DISCUSSION

For general enquiries about the School please contact us directly:

School of Architecture, Design and EnvironmentFaculty of ArtsUniversity of Plymouth Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA

Telephone: +44(0)1752 585150email: l.c.saunders@plymouth.ac.uk

ARCO: Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License