Question: I'm questioning the strength of my base argument. Am I simply trying to please everyone, or is there validity to the notion that a well defined privacy gradient provides for the ultimate expression of free will?
The Sky-Math Garden
8 years ago
Posts
i've been struggling with the same issue and the conclusion i personally am comfortable with is very similar to what you're after. in my opinion, the choice whether to engage in a public forum or private forum is optimal in all things in life. this notion is obviously a gradient, as each individual has different levels of privacy comfort. i've really been grappling with this scenario in arch 302 as well, when the issue of co-housing came up this past week. looking at some of those examples helped clarify my stance a little, if not made it even more complex.
ReplyDeletei like what i'm reading from the model. to me it looks like the individual is lifted above the common group area, with separate entry for each individual. one thing i'm researching is the spatial relationship between the group space and the individual spaces. what are the implications of this relationship?
I don't think you are saying comfort=control. I think the controlled environment is available(above) in your model and the group environment below is uncontrolled but a person would still want to be in both spaces (comfortably) at times. So control is optional and constantly available. One above the other doesn't seem like a gradient.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to offer a further explanation in regard to Nate's comment. The raised boxes are composed of a completely enclosed room (isolation), and a more open room with views and openings to below (controlled sensory impulses). The ground level is split in two zones, one being raised above ground. This is a work zone for the group (purposeful and incidental interaction); the main ground floor is the central shop area (full social interaction). This is the gradient which I'm trying to establish.
ReplyDelete