Raumplan. The spatial organisation in relation to the patterns of inhabitation.

Raumplan. The spatial organisation in relation to the patterns of inhabitation.

Moller House, plan

Student: Kochegarova Diana Supervisor: Pavlos Philippou

In the beginning of the 20th century, the question of sexuality was put into the resonant debate concerning the architectural spaces and their inhabitants. The housing planning has historically had a stable distribution and regulation of gender roles, their rights and responsibilities. However, with the expansion of feminism movement, the traditional roles of a man and a woman in the family and the definition of the family itself had to be rethought. In her essay, “The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism”, Beatriz Colomina (1992) suggests looking at the question of space within the question of sexuality. The architecture appears to be a scene for “domestic dramas” (Colomina 1992, p. 83), which act as the method of representation for the body, the same as other systems of representation such as photography, drawings, films and etc.

This paper aims to show the relation of spatial organisation in relation to the patterns of inhabitation in the architecture of Adolf Loos. The goal is not to concentrate on a specific case study but to examine his theory of a “Raumplan” through the magnifying glass of sexuality and domesticity.

Adolf Loos was born in 1870 and worked as an architect from 1898 until his death in 1933.

His specific contribution to architecture was a concept of “Raumplan”, a term suggested by one of his students. There was no a precise definition of this term, it was rather a concept that matured accordingly to Loos works. It the essay “Raumplan versus Plan Libre” accompanying the exhibition of the same name, Max Risselada (1988) suggest looking at the spatial organisation of Raumplan through the method of “patterns” (the resolutions for the spatial issues) invented by Christopher Alexander. The Loosian spatial plan (threedimensional space) is a combination of a “living plan” – an order of a horizontal space and a “material plan” – the method of coherent application of various surfaces and materials.

The important feature of the spatial organisation of Loos houses is compactness, which is mainly traced in the movement within the space. The architect approaches a house as an “object”, which Beatriz Colomina would call a “theatre box” (1992, p.79), where the main action takes place. Thus, the internal contacts are exaggerated in comparison to the diminished external contacts in order to give more emphasis on entering and leaving the space. This movement happens in various directions through the degrees of functions and privacy. First of all, Risselada (1988, pp. 27-28) examines the distinction between up and down, which reflects the degree of vertical privacy. Loos accommodates the secondary functions consequently in the top and bottom and “sandwiches” the living levels right in the middle. The sleeping area is the most private and can be accessed only through the living level. Secondly, the difference between front and back reveals another degree of axial privacy. The houses are turned towards the street – with the most public functions in the front and the living rooms at the back, which introduces the vector of movement from the entrance to the rear side. This movement is indicated in the interchange of levels – with the raised living level and the descending way out to the garden behind the back façade.

Source: Risselada (1988, p. 28) In the Moller house (Vienna, 1928) at the very end of the living level, there is an elevated sitting area – the most private place, which is given a lot of emphasis in the studies conducted by Colomina. Describing the sofa placed against the window and providing a cosy place for reading, she points out that “comfort in this place is more than just sensual, for there is also a psychological dimension” (Colomina 1992, p.76). A feeling of safety is defined by the position of the inhabitants against the light. At the first glance of the intruder, the human figures appear as the silhouettes. Contrarily, any invasion of the space would immediately be recognised by the people sitting in the alcove, the same as an actor is instantly detected by a spectator in a “theatre box”. The comfort is viewed as a tool of power and control, which also relates to the exterior. The most private place is located on the outskirts of the house, being signified by the rectilinear volume overhanging the main entrance. What is more, it correlates with the biggest window on this elevation. Thus, the inhabitant of this space is able to detect any movement both in the exterior and interior. In Loos houses, the main purpose of the window is to pass the light through, not to look outside. Colomina subtly observes that the access to the window is either usually impeded by the disposition of furniture or the window is opaque or covered with the curtains.

Furthermore, the inhabitants generally sit with their back to it, looking into the room.

Moller House, travelling of a gaze from the sitting area to the garden

Moller House, sitting area With respect to the main research question, Colomina (1992) points out the separation of spaces on male and female. In her analysis for Moller and Müller houses, she specifies that the “theatre boxes” – the stages of privacy and control – refer to female spaces. On the contrary, the libraries with the distinguishing character of furniture that reflect the public spaces (an “office” or a “club”) are assigned with male spaces. The raised nook in the Moller house and the Zimmer der Dame in Müller house appear to be the most intimate places in the houses, which precede the bedrooms above, where sexuality takes its place.

On another hand, the disposition of these areas on the highest point inevitably draws the intruder’s attention to the figure opposing the window light. Therefore, the person detecting the interior finds himself being watched at the present moment of control. The object and subject swap their places. Another evidence of gender reflection is found in the contrast between interior and exterior. The facades of Loos houses are almost puritan.

Devoid of any decoration, they refer to the “metropolitan individual” (Colomina 1992, p.93) who has to preserve his intimacy with the mask. In other words, “modern man needs his clothes as a mask. His individuality is so strong…” (1908, cited in Colomina 1992, p.93).

The internal space is filled with senses and sexuality – this is a female prerogative. Anyone who looks into the interior space (and Colomina mentions here that the intrusion happens at the moment of observing the sitting area – a place of privacy) becomes a “voyeur”.

Müller House, Zimmer der Dame In Loos project for a house of Josephine Baker “voyeurism” seems to acquire a specific purpose. The house was designed to accommodate a large two-level swimming pool, with the wide windows flooding the pool with the light and small thick windows placed under the watermark level. From one side, the slippery body of Josephine Baker becomes the main object of someone’s gaze, though it is partly rendered by the distortion of water surface and glass. From another side, an “actor” can release a “spectator” at the moment of watching, whose lower part of the body is excised by the window frames. In this case, the system of looks gets even more complicated because subject and object are unable to be swapped easily. Even if nobody looks through the glass at the present moment, a feeling of a gaze still remains.

A project for Josephine Baker House

The last but not the least tool that Loos used for the purpose of a gaze manipulation was a mirror. Colomina (1992) mentions that the mirror located at the eye-level “returns the gaze to the interior”, which refers to the Freudian theory of psyche – a self-portrait. For example, in Steiner house, the mirror is located below a dim window that only provides light and can be confused with the mirror itself, as Kenneth Frampton (1986, cited in Colomina 1992, p.

85) has suggested.

Steiner House, dining area The main goal of the current study was to determine the spatial arrangement and the tools of Raumplan that were interpreted by Beatriz Colomina as a stage to showcase a man’s and a woman’s identity. One of the more considerable findings to emerge from this study is that the “female” spaces hold a significant control over the whole interior being accommodated at the periphery of the house. When the gaze of the intruder reaches the intimate space, the watching obtains the double character, and the “object” recognises itself scanned. Despite that, the woman seems to dominate the views of the domestic scene, she stays trapped under the “voyeurs” looks in her own house. Future research can also be conducted on the fragility of a female position that does not obtain a ‘mask’ as a man does. From one side, Colomina views the Raumplan as a stage for feminist birth, but from another side, the distinction between the male and female figures is even reinforced by the spatial organisation according to Loos conception. Probably, an additional uncontrolled factor is that “equality of rights” propagandised in feminist movement breaks against the gender-loaded domestic life. Despite this, Raumplan is a vigorous attempt to frame the domestic dramas and assign a direction, which a modern family would move towards.

Bibliography Colomina, B 1992, ‘The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism’, in B Colomina (ed), Sexuality & Space, Princeton Architectural Press, New Jersey, pp. 73-98.

Risselada, M 1988, Raumplan Versus Plan Libre, 1st ed., Delft University Press, Delft, viewed 2 May 2017, <https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:e613a1d6-403b-476b-828d3340f275c74f/datastream/OBJ/download,%20http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/ uuid:e613a1d6-403b-476b-828d-3340f275c74f?collection=research>.

Wilson, E 1997, ‘Sexuality and Space edited by Beatriz Colomina’, Harvard Design Magazine, viewed 13 May 2017, <http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/1/sexuality-and-space-edited-by-beatrizcolomina> Image references A project for Josephine Baker House, digital photograph, accessed 17 May 2017, <https://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/03/17/someone-is-buried-here-adolf-loos-onarchitecture-and-death/adolf-loos-josephine-baker-house/>.

Moller House, plan, digital photograph, accessed 16 May 2017, < http://www.fabale.it/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/Casa_Moller_1928_piante_Adolf_Loos.jpg>.

Moller House, sitting area, digital photograph, accessed 16 May 2017, <http://archinect.com/features/article/2220223/architecture-in-the-givenness-toward-thedifficult-whole-again-part-2>.

Moller House, travelling of a gaze from the sitting area to the garden, digital image, accessed 16 May 2017, <https://architecturality.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/01modernarchitecture_colquhoun_82_80_01.jpg>.

Müller House, Zimmer der Dame, digital photograph, accessed 16 May 2017, <http://pamphletofarchitecture.blogspot.com.cy/2009/11/muller-house-adolf-loos-saysof.html>.

Risselada, M 1988, Raumplan Versus Plan Libre, 1st ed., Delft University Press, Delft, viewed 2 May 2017, <https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:e613a1d6-403b-476b-828d3340f275c74f/datastream/OBJ/download,%20http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/ uuid:e613a1d6-403b-476b-828d-3340f275c74f?collection=research>, p. 28 Steiner House, dining area, digital photograph, accessed 16 May 2017, <http://archinect.com/features/article/2220223/architecture-in-the-givenness-toward-thedifficult-whole-again-part-2