Architecture and spaces influencing human being to socialize Essay Example

within families. The essay will also present theories linking spatial property with sociology. Ultimately, it aims to provide a deep understanding of key points contributing to achieving an intimate, affectionate, and harmonious family lifestyle at home. Societal interaction in sociology refers to outward actions where family members' behaviors impact individual preferences.In order to effectively facilitate interaction among family members, it is crucial to analyze the balance between interpersonal dynamics and the home environment. Many societal interactions demonstrate strategic complementarities, where the utility of undertaking an action increases with the average amount of that action taken by other family members. Therefore, changes in fundamentals have both a direct impact on behavior and an indirect effect with the same direction. Despite being composed of like-minded individuals, a family can control its functioning and behaviors in ways that distinguish it from others. Typically, the father serves as the head of the family followed by the mother, setting a positive example in their interactions for the benefit of their children at home unintentionally at times. Consequently, maintaining order and enforcing rules falls under the responsibility of the father. If sociality is not considered a core value in a family's focus, it will have ripple effects on their behavior leading to more social problems both within their working environments and among their friends in school. Social interaction should be viewed as requiring collaboration between two parties rather than being a one-way process for achieving successful outcomes.Within the household, there exists a hierarchy where each member has their own social roles to fulfill. It is crucial for the family to comprehend and differentiate between the internal dynamics of their unique society

and external influences beyond their home. Bott (1957: 99) argues that urban households' immediate social environment should not be limited to just the local area, but rather considered as a network of real social relationships that extend beyond geographical boundaries. Maintaining active social interaction within the family fosters healthy relationships among individual members and reduces tension in their interactions. This type of interaction encompasses elements such as solidarity, commitment, mutual respect, and trust. Furthermore, maintaining a healthy societal relationship plays a vital role in avoiding the formation of boundaries and allowing for bipartisan traffic of interaction. The physical spatial environment also contributes to this healthy relationship. Research suggests that the physical spatial environment affects interactions within societal spaces by influencing individuals' social behaviors and their ability to influence others. Various spatial elements like buffer zones between private and general spaces, household surveillance, and shared common areas all impact social interaction within the home.The adaptability of buffer zones allows for the creation of formal or informal social interaction areas based on the physical layout. Additionally, the segregation of spaces can strengthen familial bonds. Some activities are more suitable to be performed in private spaces, as individuals have the freedom to choose where and with whom they interact, leading to spatial segregation as observed by Schelling [1978]. This kind of segregation may occur even when individuals would normally prefer integrated living arrangements because they have the option for individual suites. It seems that spatial quality unknowingly impacts societal behaviors.

When discussing behavior, it is crucial to consider various factors such as architecture aesthetics and the complex relationship between capital and generational changes. Therefore, understanding how behavior evolves over

time becomes essential. Behavior also plays a significant role in forming hypotheses regarding the connections between human life, nature, and the built environment. Each building can be seen as a unique entity with its own intelligence and defining characteristics. Research findings indicate that physical design indirectly influences social interaction through multiple factors.The text discusses various factors that influence societal interaction, including informal and formal social factors, personal aspects, and physical design factors. These factors determine the frequency and quality of interaction among household members. The presence of communal spaces promotes common activities and reduces intimidation. The perception and understanding of the physical environment by household members is crucial in shaping interaction patterns. The layout of spaces and societal interaction mutually influence each other. Architecture is driven by the program, which represents order and chaos and determines mass and surfaces. Le Courbusier emphasized the importance of program in achieving purpose, expression, rhythm, mass, and coherence in architecture through active imagination and critical discipline.The program determines the level of interaction achieved by the household or the social issues they may face. Therefore, creating a program involves defining the main objective and generating ideas. The Schroeder house is a prime example of how the concept of infinity can bring family members together and strengthen their social bonds. This house embraces the idea of a plan-less design, which has played a significant role in modern architecture. This concept allows for a logical workflow, where individuals can either enjoy their personal spaces or gather together in a communal area. By simply using moveable dividers, the house can adapt to cater to different privacy levels desired by each family member.

This kind

of planning increases social interaction among family members, as they are naturally inclined to work and interact in a shared space. The balance between open and closed spaces becomes the focal point of the main house, creating a sense of both openness and intimacy through strategic placement of furniture, gaps, and walls. The furniture itself acts as a guide, positioning individuals in a way that encourages interaction while still respecting personal boundaries.

This arrangement supports and fosters social interaction by reducing barriers between family members. It is beneficial to incorporate the design element of film, which blurs the boundaries between human life, nature, and the built environment.

Case Studies

The layout and design of traditional kampong houses in Singapore were specifically planned to encourage social interaction among households. These kampongs had common areas where people would gather and spend time together, creating a sense of community. The spaces within the kampongs were open and free-flowing, without many barriers or obstacles. This lack of physical divisions allowed for flexibility in meeting multiple needs, which is often lacking in modern housing estates.

Upon examination of the interior layout of a typical kampong house, it becomes evident that the architecture embraces openness and minimal use of dividers. In my analysis diagram provided, the kampong house can be divided into three sectors. The first sector serves as a passage between the public and private areas, also functioning as an entertaining space for guests. The second sector represents the private area where all household activities occur. Lastly, there is a communal open area within the third sector where family members can observe each other's movements.

One significant aspect contributing to social activity within a kampong

house is its central kitchen location. Adult women frequently utilize this space for chatting and socializing purposes; hence it acts as the center of social engagement. To separate public and private spaces effectively, a divider is placed in this area. Additionally, the kitchen has a semi-private nature with another entrance at the back of the house.

Overall, this strategic layout creates a clear hierarchy system that segregates public and private spaces while fostering communal interactions within traditional kampong houses in SingaporeThe study of campong houses reveals important aspects such as their hierarchical system and open floor plan. Modern HDB flats were developed in February 1960 to replace the kampong lifestyle due to Singapore's housing shortage. These high-density housing units were initially built for low-income groups, but over time, the focus shifted towards improving quality of life rather than just quantity of housing. By analyzing the layout of modern HDB flats, we can understand why families today have less social interaction with each other. The main idea is that solid walls separate different areas in a house, limiting social interaction. The percentage of private space is always higher than that of common areas. Although some HDB units have common corridors, they mainly serve as connections between private spaces rather than spaces for family members to interact. This raises questions about whether the size of these corridors is problematic since they are primarily seen as passageways rather than places for interaction. Comparing traditional campong houses and modern HDB flats highlights differences in quality of life. In modern houses, family members are separated by walls which discourage interaction and deprive non-interacting members from healthy socialization values.The traditional campong layout

emphasizes open living and shared spaces, maintaining visual connections between family members. Mies Van de Rohe's 1923 brick country house project showcases spatial divisions while still connecting with the surroundings through the use of walls. The Barcelona Pavilion of 1929, also by Mies van der Rohe, utilizes walls to create perspectives and suggest spaces without fully dividing the open-air structure. In contrast, Gerrit Rietveld's Schroder House in 1924 employs retractable sliding dividers located on the edges of the house to showcase a plan-less design. These dividers can separate spaces into rooms for increased layout possibilities. However, this arrangement does not name each specific space and offers limited flexibility compared to movable screens or furniture that are independent from the structure itself. Western architecture has diverse approaches to address social interaction concerns.The text highlights the flexibility and adaptability of the interior layout, which promotes a connection between residents and the building through physical engagement. This freedom allows for adjustments based on individual needs, facilitating ongoing social interaction within the household. In contrast to Western architecture, traditional Japanese houses have rooms that serve multiple purposes dictated by activities. This approach results in flexible and multi-purpose spaces, as demonstrated in a comparison diagram of open-less floor plans between Japanese and Western concepts.Bibliography

Work Cited