ANNA YUNITSYNA

CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE, RUSSIA

UNIVERSAL SPACE IN DWELLING AND METHODS OF ITS SPATIAL, FUNCTIONAL AND

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS.

ABSTRACT
Composition and spatial organization of the dwelling can vary due to the multiple factors, such
as economical, climatical, cultural etc., but the functional organization of dwelling through all the
times is defined by basic human activities. Universal dwelling can be based on this principle
every space inside can easy change its function. As soon as dwelling can not be seen without
its inhabitant, it is important to evaluate, how the structure is corresponding towards his
constantly changing needs, and how to find the most effective and reasonable way of those
adaptation. Construction of the universal dwelling brings it to the other level of sustainability
house spaces can be used more effectively by the users, and establishing of a new living
activity will not need any additional material, time and finance resources. The work starts from
the brief explanation of the term universality regarding to the dwelling spatial unit the room.
Universal space in dwelling is a space, which can potentially fit any of the living activities without
significant changes. It is multi-use and undefined space, and all the rooms of dwelling have
equal possibility to host one of the living functions. Universality in use can be achieved by
several techniques by creating the spaces with equal size, access, similar spatial qualities.
Each of it has one result each space, or dwelling itself can be inhabited in different ways,
which makes all of them universal. Second part is devoted to the methods of evaluation of
universality in dwelling. The living unit and its subdivided spaces rooms are the objects of
analysis. Space is analyzed according to its geometrical properties (perimeter configuration,
openings, size), circulation, construction, possibility to be divided/united, functional infilling the
amount and character of places, representing activities, which can be hold potentially in it,
relation to the environment and surroundings, the position of the dwelling unit in the structure of
the whole building. The final part is a trial test of the several case studies in order to illustrate
the appearance of universality in dwelling and to give an examples of this type of space.
KEY WORDS: HOUSING, FLEXIBILITY, UNIVERSALITY, SPACE EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION

The problem of housing design can be approached from different points of view. From one side,
the house is reflection of people, who are living in it. The inner space is defined by their
activities, it is changing together with the growth of family, or together with changing lifestyles of
its members. Also in contemporary households singles are about one third of the households.
Nowadays there are less families with the traditional lifestyle connected with the idea of having
a house for generations, the place of habitation can be changed together with changing of a job,
and people are becoming less dependent from one place. There is also a big percentage of
rental housing, and one living can change its occupants very often.
The other approach to housing is economy. Most of the homes are designed without any
knowledge about their future owner. Moreover, some of the constructions supposed not to have
determined commercial, residential, trade or any other function. During 20 century the
modernism architecture had tendency to create several housing typologies, and each of them
aimed to host specified living activities. So, any house had bigger and smaller spaces, which
size was regulated by standards. Even the construction of building often was derived from those
rooms. The pattern of housing typologies was created by one, two, three etc room residential
unit, and each of them had similar structure of kitchen, living room, bathroom and bedrooms.
The sizes of spaces were changing with time, but inside of the unit there was no possibility to
switch the function from room to room. Nowadays the design tendency is moved to the concept
of spaces, which the client must solve on his own. The house has not a functional program any
more, but it can have a number of undefined spaces, where it is possible to bring in any living or
working processes for different periods of time. The aim of architecture moved from functional
design, which actually has shorter lifetime in reality, to the design of building structures, which
have itself much longer lifetime and should be universal in use. At the same time the building
structure and its spatial subdivisions should be rational, because it is reflected to the total costs
of house, which is equally important both for developer and client.
The aspect of changing human behavior with unpredictable living situations also is defining the
house structure to be more adaptable to the occasional short-time activities.
All these points are directly connected to the sustainability and ecology. The possibility of
building to be used differently without any spatial changes means having the minimal spends of
resources during the each action of change. Also to have such a space, which potentially can
be used in multiple ways reduces demands for construction of infinite amounts of specified
units. Division between lifetimes of supporting structures with materials with longer durability
and the temporary partitions, which lifetime can be defined just by activities currently taking
place in, construction of the multi-use spaces can increase the ecological qualities of dwelling
and minimize the waste of materials. Also sustainability rises with the rising of social quality.
The place starts to be suitable for longer periods of occupation by the same owner, the
community becomes more stable, which improves the social atmosphere of the place.

Design challenge for the universal spatial unit has to deal with all these approaches it aims to
create a space with higher social, ecological, economical benefits taking in consideration the
changing human behavior,

2
DEFINITION OF UNIVERSALITY IN DWELLING. UNIVERSALITY IN THEORIES OF
SPACE.
Universality in housing deals with possibility of dwelling to be adapted to the changing living
activities without touching the inner structure of unit. In universal dwelling any space potentially
should host all possible actions, therefore it is important to define primarily all range of them.
There can be thousands different activities vary from age, culture, profession and habits of the
occupants, bit for the evaluation of universality it is necessary to establish the basic ones, the
primary activities of human life. Bernard Leupen proposes 6 basic activities: working, sleeping,
eating, cooking, bathing and getting together. Each of these functions requires a specific space
and also each has different importance for the human life. If we lok at the character of spaces,
which are needed, the activity of bathing and cooking are the only ones, which require specially
installed equipments, which means, that these activities are performed in specialized space with
determined function. The activity of bathing takes approximately 4% of the day time, meanwhile
the sleeping is about 30%. From the 6 basic activities the position of bathing is fixed, and the
other can be held in different places, which excludes it from the list of basic ones, which are
needed for the universality evaluation.
Herman Hertzberger develops a concept of polyvalent space the form, which is static and
permanent, but could be put in different uses without structural interventions. Polyvalence in
this context related to the interchangeability of activities between the rooms.
Universality of dwelling means, that there are several spaces in living unit, which can be
inhabitated in different way. Universality of the whole is a combination of universalities of
several or even just of one unit. According to B. Leupen minimal dimensions for the social space
in house are 4x4 m, which gives a certain degree of universality every space with such size
can potentially have this function, and if there are more, than one of such spaces in unit, that
means, that the functions can be exchanged between those spaces.
Spaces can be analyzed also from social and cultural positions. J. Hanson proposes in any
housing system to give importance to the analysis of relations connections between spaces
and configuration the way, how the system of space is related together in one pattern. Social
and cultural conditions bring also some specific requirements to spaces and the way, how it
could be approached. Hanson describes the categories of differentiation and relativity in
dwelling spaces these qualities refer to the possibility of space to acquire particular social
activities. Differentiation refers to the extent, to which particular functions are assumed
unambiguously to specific space within the home. Some spaces can be associated only with
specific activities, meanwhile neutral, or multifunctional spaces can contain any activity.
Mies van der Rohe describes universal space as long-span single-volume enclosure, the kind of
space, which can house a wide variety of uses ranging from industry to transport, sports and

leisure activities, the space, which can be modeled to suit almost any user requirements. If we
speak about the universality in dwelling, the size of the space is much smaller, basic living
activities are defined, and the dwelling unit is already subdivided into permanent spatial
elements rooms. The task of defining the universality comes to evaluation of the rooms
qualities. Designing a house, the architect proposes just a potential environment, and only the
inhabitant transforms it into the effective one. The aim of the universal spaces design is to make
this transformation fast, simple and with minimal efforts and loses.
3

METHODS OF EVALUATION OF UNIVERSALITY IN DWELLING.

Dwelling itself is a very complex structure including not only the physical space, where people
live, but also multiple social, cultural and behavioral factors. Dwelling is a space, where different
activities take place, therefore in dwelling analysis it is important to take in consideration not
only the physical properties of the dwelling unit and its partition elements, but also the meaning
of these spaces referring to the cultural and social background of inhabitants.
If we speak about the universal dwelling unit, we must overlook at the qualities of spaces
combining it. Dwelling can be partially universal, if several or even just one of the subdivision
units of it are universal, which means, that they can host potentially each of the 5 basic living
activities (working, sleeping, eating, cooking and getting together). Even the rooms itself can
have the degree of universality regarding to the number of functions it can have.
Dwelling itself is not a closed object, it is always developed in the correspondence with
environment. For the understanding and evaluation of the structure of living unit it is important to
look at the external factors affecting to it. The internal organization of the dwelling unit
influences to the properties of its rooms, as soon as the infilling of the room itself represents the
potential activities.
In semiotics space is analyzed as a connection or relationship between the objects filling it.
Space is understood as a background, a context, stage, where the objects can be perceived.
Josef Brent explains, that the way, how objects are arranged in space, the quality, or the nature
of the objects themselves, the potential uses of the object and its relationship with people define
the potential meaning of space.
Even the object of analysis is dwelling itself, there several scales of analysis. Primarily it relates
to the idea of environmental levels the steps of building design proposed by J. Habraken. For
the dwelling unit analysis the levels could be: the urban block, dwelling unit itself, room, room
infilling (place). In this scheme the room is the main object to determine the universality in use,
but the other layers shold clarify and complete the justification. Each layer has a set of criteria,
such as environmental, constructive, geometrical properties, accessibility and diversification,
which are applicable consequently from one layer to another. Depending on the layer the
importance of any criteria in relation to universality in use can change. Some of criteria can work
independently and be objective and rational, some points of evaluation can not be measured by
rational procedures, because they have direct relation to the human nature of behavior, social
and cultural background. It is also important to evaluate some position within the interconnection
with higher and lower levels.

Environmental factors have direct relation to the position of the unit in space and its connection
to the other ones, orientation of the unit and the character of surroundings. Orientation towards
north/south is one of the key points in design of dwelling. Some spaces have no specific
requirement within the orientation and room arrangements, but several specialized spaces can
be placed only according restrictions of accessibility, insolation, orientation towards north,
ventilation, relation with external environment. Interior spaces can be justified primarily by needs
of natural light and insolation time, which will create the hierarchy of restrictions: from the
service spaces, which doesnt require natural light to enlightened ones (living rooms, bedrooms,
cabinets, studios) and to the spaces with the necessary minimal time of direct sunlight (living
rooms, bedrooms). It exists the tendency to orient living spaces to the south, meanwhile
bedrooms are preferred to have less sunlight, but natural lighting is a crucial factor for holding
any living activity except cooking. The places with long-term activities are preferred to be
oriented towards better views. Having the space, which is opened to good view, can not be
related directly with definition of universality, but it gives advantage to such space to be chosen
by inhabitant. At the same time, public or private character of the space, which is attached to the
unit borders, provides some social limitation of its use - several spaces can not contact directly
to the public areas. In the cases of corridor or gallery dwelling organization, when one side of
the unit is always faced to public spaces, the exterior orientation defines the potential of inner
space to be adapted. Places, which are oriented directly to the public areas, are less suitable for
application of more intimate daily activities, such as sleeping, but at the same time they are
preferred for the socially oriented activities, such as working (the case of the home office) or
getting together.
Factors of diversity and repetition characterize the appearance of the analyzed unit in a whole
system, which is related to the number of functions, that can correspond with it. The bigger is
the difference between rooms in dwelling or the variety of living units in building, the greater
would be specialization of each of the spatial units. From the other side, repetition of similar
element shows its potential to house different activities, The position of the unit in relation to the
whole system shows its potential to have different activities.
Circulation system has direct relation to the privacy of spaces. If the space has only one
entrance, it becomes more private, than the space with a passage through it. According to J.
Hanson, there are some social and cultural limitations for the most private spaces, such as
bedrooms, which means, that rooms, which have 2 points of access can not have this function,
which makes them less universal. On the level of the dwelling unit the situation could be
opposite having 2 points of access can make the subdivided spaces more independent,
differentiate private and public zones and make the unit more flexible. The physical length of the
path from the entrance point to the unit is important the more near the space is positioned
towards the entrance, more public it could be.
Geometrical properties of the unit, such as size and perimeter, are easier to be measured and
compared. To establish a true measure of the universality of spatial unit, it could be compared
with the accepted housing standards. Even the standards differ from one country to another, it is
possible to find the intermediate numbers and evaluate the potential universality of dwelling,
room or place. B. Leupen proposes 16 sq.m room as a minimal space, where people can get

together, which mean, that it potentially can fit any of 5 activities. Also in the system of whole
dwelling unit it is important to have an extra room, which in future could be transformed
according to the needs of dwellers. For the monofunctional place the first attempt to define the
universal size of it was done in 1950 by Le Corbusier. He proposed a living unit with dimensions
2.26x2.26x2.26m, alveolar volume a container of men, cellular volume, which allows a great
variety in composition. The unit was understood as container, which could hold only one
function bed, table, kitchen etc. Those containers could be attached to each other in order to
create infinite number of layouts.
Perimeter configuration defines the structure of infilling. Spaces with the same area, but with
different proportions of sides can provide different layout and different character and number of
activities. Spaces with sides related in proportion 1:1 1:2 can be used more efficiently and
more universal, than longer and narrow ones, where the huge part of the floor will be used for
circulation. Also there are some physical limitations: too narrow spaces make rooms impossible
to bring in it some living activities, which usually require bigger space and used at the same time
by bigger groups of people for example the spaces for communication and gathering, or
master bedrooms.
Openings, such as doors and windows, can be evaluated within the correspondence with the
inner layout of the room. These features have rational meaning, such as providing of the access
onto the space, or providing in it the natural lighting. Also there are some socio-psychological
factors, such as visibility and control of space.
Hanson distinguishes several types of by usability use-spaces, transitions and architectural
spaces. Use-spaces are normally simple square or rectangular rooms, which are aggregated
together and linked by a circulation system of long thin rectangular transitions, that are defined
by exterior wall surfaces of rooms. The other type of spatial organization is architectural space,
which takes form as more fluid, articulated open-plan shape, made up of several convex
spaces, which differentiate activities and occupations from areas intended for circulation and
movement, but without separating them by walls. Even in open-plan room circulation spaces
are implied. It can be understood by analyzing the possible layout of space with furnishing will
appear clear division for the circulation space and living.
The constructive system of dwelling defines the character of inner subdivisions by the type and
density of supporting elements. This concept relates also to the three spatial categories
proposed by anthropologist Edward Hall in his research within the theory of semiotics of space.
He divides the spatial types according to the cultural treatment of space. Fixed feature space
is formed by walls and territorial boundaries, it is a space within the stable frame. Semi-fixed
features are movable elements movable walls, curtains, different furniture arrangements,
screens. This refers to the concept of flexibility, where the emphasize made on the possibility of
different layouts, which can be transformed relatively easy and fast. The third category is
informal or dynamic space, when person varies the spatial features of his surroundings the
space without the frame, space with changeable borders. Universality is primarily related to the
permanent spaces, but the character and density of constructive frame defines the potential
changeability of the spatial layout. Together with the evaluation of the space size it shows the

possibility of spatial units to be united or divided in order to provide the sufficient space. The
solidity of the constructive elements characterizes the potential of layout to be reorganized.
Functional program of the dwelling unit and the function of each room can be evaluated by
distribution and combination of places in it. Spaces, which are already combining several
programs, vacant spaces, multiple repetitive spaces without any defined function can be
potentially universal.
4

CASE STUDIES SELECTION.

The projects described below are selected because of their unusual spatial organization. All
three examples based on the same concept the inner layout of the dwelling is organized by
repetition of only one spatial unit, which demonstrates, that each of the 5 basic living activities
can be applied to the any room. The analysis of spaces with equal size allows to understand the
importance of irrational factors, such as circulation, environment and structural organization in
creating of the universal space.
4.1

VILLA V BEROUNE, HH ARCHITEKTI, CZECH REPUBLIC.

Villa in Beroun was designed in 2001 by Czech architects Petr Hjek, Tom Hraden and Jan
pka for the Pszczolka family and realized in 2004. Structurally, the house itself is a 3dimencional grid combined from 24 cubes with the side of 3m, grouped spatially as 2x6x2 into a
simple block. The grid is clearly readable in plans and in facades of the building. There is no
distinction between any of units; the function of each is defined only by the character of
equipment. Some units have sliding walls, allowing uniting different spaces, some can be
united vertically in order to provide visual connection between 2 stories. There is no specific
circulation space some rooms can be accessed only through the others.

Fig. 1: First and second floors of villa in Beroun.

(http://www.hsharchitekti.cz/index.php?lang=cs&page=project&name=vila-v-beroune)
4.2

GIFU KITAGATA APARTMENT BUILDING, SEJIMA WING JAPAN.

The whole building is constructed from one type of spatial unit a room, combined together in
different ways. The apartment building is part of a large scale public housing reconstruction
project located near Gifu City, Japan. In order to minimize construction waste and to achieve
standardization architect used a room 2,5x5m as a single spatial unit of the building. Each
apartment consists on 5-6 modules, which can have vertical or horizontal connections. Basically
the functions of units are kitchen/dining, bedroom, terrace, tatami room, which are linked in front

by narrow sun room (engawa). Each apartment has 3-5 entrances, which can be used
differently depending on the owners lifestyle. Sejima: "Given that this building is made up of
rental apartments, it could be assumed that various types of families would live in those units. In
other words, we imagined that forms of co-habitation would not be restricted to the existing
standard family, but that different types of groupings of people should be considered..."

Fig. 3: Gify Kitagata apartment building dwelling units. Block 1.

(http://gifuprefecture.blogspot.com/)
4.3

JAVA EILAND APARTMENT BUILDING (HOOGKWERF), DIENER & DIENER

Diener & Diener architects are well known for their buildings and urban proposals for geometric
minimalist housing. The building elements used in Hoogkwerf building are extremely simple,
prismatic blocks, logically and volumetrically organized in plan, section, and elevation. There are
2 types of modular units grouped around a central courtyard surrounded by an exterior corridor
(one at each floor). The structure is composed of seven parallel load bearing walls in reinforced
concrete. The courtyard is 15 x 20 meter, and a standard spatial module is 5x7,5m. There are
several types of the service spaces: public spaces, such as stairs, are solved inside the same
module, just rotated perpendicularly towards the common orientation, dwellings entrance and
wc are grouped together in 5x5 m space, terraces are 5x2,5m. Each flat is composed from the 3
rooms of equal size with free function. From the entrance there is always access only into 2
rooms, the third one is accessed through one of them, which makes one of the rooms less
suitable for the sleeping and working activities. The same dining/living room in each scheme
has the only access to the terrace. The similarly sized living areas are not accorded a specific
function so that they can be used as desired.

Fig. 5: Jawa Eiland apartment building typical floor plan.

(http://javaeilandapartmentbuilding.blogspot.com/)
5

CONCLUSION

Universality in dwelling exists, when the dwelling can be used in different ways. Some rooms
can have equal possibility to be used as bedroom, living room, or working or hobby room. The
more different living patterns the dwelling can accommodate, the higher is the level of its
universality. The analyzed projects demonstrate different approaches in creating the universal
layout.
In villa in Beroun the monofunctional place becomes the unified spatial unit. The whole dwelling
is constructed from the uniform cubes, where one or two sides of it are used for providing the
access. The size of the cube is big enough to accommodate any of 5 activities. At the same
time in the structure of villa there is a major division between public and private: the social
spaces of living and cooking area are united in a single space, meanwhile the working and
sleeping activities can take place in one of the three similar rooms. The central circulation core
with a stair also provides some reserve spaces, which could be attached to the existing ones, or
used for the activities with less privacy rate. The location of activities within the building can be
easily changed, and the size of the minimal room allows its division into sufficient functional
spaces.
In Gifu Kitagata apartment building universality in use is achieved by creating the rooms with
independent access. In typical apartment only the kitchen space is fixed, the other rooms are
the equal in size units, and each can be reached from two directions private gallery of the flat
and public gallery. Kitchen and terrace in apartment are social spaces, allowing the access to
the rest of the flat through them. Three, four or five other spaces can accommodate different
activities. These spaces become more private due to the possibility of having independent
entrance.
Jawa Eiland project also demonstrates the connection between universality and access to the
room. From three spaces with the same size only two can have all living activities. The central
space of the dwelling is framed by four entrances, which excludes the sleeping activity.
There are different degrees of universality, depending primarily of the character, organization
and number of spaces, combining the dwelling, the number of inhabitants, environment. The
universality of the whole dwelling depends on the universality of its spaces, which is defined
consequently from the number of units with appropriate size, circulation pattern, relating to the
privacy and publicity outside and inside the house. To improve the quality of the spaces, it is
important to organize within the structure of dwelling the transitional space, which will collect the
circulations inside the dwelling, and make the rest more independent in distribution of basic
activities. If there is only one room within the whole dwelling unit, which can be named
universal, the whole dwelling universality is limited: there is no possible interchangeability of
functions between rooms.
Study of the phenomenon of universality in dwelling and understanding the factors affecting to it
can be important in creating new housing typologies dealing not only with statical distribution of
functions inside the dwelling spaces, but with the housing, which is organized with the
consideration of the living process with its unpredictability and uncertainty.
6

REFERENCES

Bendick Manum, 2005. Generality versus specificity, 5th International Space Syntax
Symposium, Delft
Bernard Leupen, 2006. Polyvalence, a concept for the sustainable dwelling, Nordic journal of
architectural research, Volume 19, 3
Bernard Leupen, Ren Heijne, Jasper Van Zwol, 2005. Time-Based Architecture, 010
Publishers
Branco Pedro, 2010. How small can a house be? Sustainable development affordable to all.
Low cost sustainable solutions, Portugal
Chris Wilkinson, 2001. Universal space, Bridging Art and Science, Booth Clibborn Editions
Claude Levy-Leboyer, Eugenia Ratiu, 1993. The need for space and residential satisfaction,
Architecture and Behaviour, Volume 9, 4
Danny Lobos, Dirk Donath, 2010. The problem of space layout in architecture: a survey and
reflections. Arquiteturarevista, Volume 6, 2
Dietmar Eberle, 2001. European models for the urban block, lecture given at the Design for
Homes Intensive Flair conference, June
Dorota Wlodarczyk, 2005. Urban space in residential areas a methodology for analysis of
structure, Methodologies in Housing Research, Newcastle upon Tyne, The Urban International
Press
Edward Hall, 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday
Elliot Gaines, 2006. Communication and the semiotics of space. Journal of creative
communications, 1:2
Gnter Pfeifer, Per Brauneck, 2010. Freestanding Houses: A Housing Typology, Springer
Herman Hertzberger, 2001. Lessons for students in architecture, 010 Publishers
Henry Coolen, Risuko Ozaki, 2004. Culture, lifestyle and the meaning of dwelling, Abequate and
Affordable housing for all, International conference, Toronto
Julienne Hanson, 2003. Decoding homes and houses, Cambridge University press
Helen G. Welling, Magrit Livo, Peder Duelund Mortesen, Lene Wiel Nordberg, 2006. Situations
of dwelling dwelling suiting situations. Nordic journal of architectural research, Volume 19, No
3
Le Corbusier, 1955. Modulor 2, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Winfried Noth, 1990. Handbook of semiotics, Indiana University press