From Children in the Family by Florence Powdermaker and Louise Grimes, New York: Farrar & Reinhart, Inc., 1940, p. 108: “Even if a child has a room of his own, he doesn’t like being kept there all day long but wants to spend much of his time in other parts of the house. . . .” And p. I 12: “. . . he enjoys and craves attention. Fie likes to show things to adults and have them share in the pleasure of his discoveries. Besides, he is entranced by their activities and would like to have a finger in every pie.”
And from Svend Riemer, “Sociological Theory of Home Adjustment,” American Soc. Rev.,Vol. 8, No. 3, June 1943, p. 277:
In adjustment to the activities of other members of the family, it will be necessary to “migrate” . . . between the different rooms of the family home. Even the same activity may have to be moved from one room to the other at different times of the day.
Home studies for example may have to be carried out in the living room during the afternoon, while food is being prepared in the kitchen; they may have to be continued in the kitchen during the evening hours, when the living room is occupied by leisure time activities of other members of the family. This “migration” between different rooms is apt to impair intellectual concentration. It may convey a sense of insecurity. Its possible disadvantages have to be seriously considered whenever children are reared in the family home.
It is clear then, that the opposing needs for some seclusion and some community at the same time in the same space, occur in almost every family. It is not hard to see that only slightly different versions of the very same forces exist in all communal rooms. People want to be together; but at the same time they want the opportunity for some small amount of privacy, without giving up community.
If ten people, or five, are together in a room, and two of them want to pull away to one side to have a quiet talk together, they need a place to do it. Only the alcove, or some version of the
BUILDINGS
alcove, can give them the privacy they need, without forcing them to give the group up altogether.
Therefore:
Make small places at the edge of any common room, usually no more than 6 feet wide and 3 to 6 feet deep and possibly much smaller. These alcoves should be large enough for two people to sit, chat, or play and sometimes large enough to contain a desk or a table.
♦£*
Give the alcove a ceiling which is markedly lower than the ceiling height in the main room—ceiling height variety (190); make a partial boundary between the alcove and the common room by using low walls and thick columns—half-open wall (193), column place (226); when the alcove is on an outside wall, make it into a window place, with a nice window, low sill, and a built-in seat—window place (180), built-in seats (202) ; and treat it as thickening the outer walls (211). For details on the shape of the alcove, see the shape of indoor space (191). . . .
832
| l8o WINDOW PLACE** |
|---|
 |
833
. . . this pattern helps complete the arrangement of the windows given by entrance room (130), zen view (134), light on
TWO SIDES OF EVERY ROOM ( I 5 9), STREET WINDOWS (164). According to the pattern, at least one of the windows in each room needs to be shaped in such a way as to increase its usefulness as a space.
Everybody loves window seats, bay windows, and big windows with low sills and comfortable chairs drawn up to them.
It is easy to think of these kinds of places as luxuries, which can no longer be built, and which we are no longer lucky enough to be able to afford.
In fact, the matter is more urgent. These kinds of windows which create “places” next to them are not simply luxuries; they are necessary. A room which does not have a place like this seldom allows you to feel fully comfortable or perfectly at ease. Indeed, a room without a window place may keep you in a state of perpetual unresolved conflict and tension—slight, perhaps, but definite.
This conflict takes the following form. If the room contains no window which is a “place,” a person in the room will be torn between two forces:
1. He wants to sit down and be comfortable.
2. He is drawn toward the light.
Obviously, if the comfortable places—those places in the room where you most want to sit—are away from the windows, there is no way of overcoming this conflict. You see, then, that our love for window “places” is not a luxury but an organic intuition, based on the natural desire a person has to let the forces he experiences run free. A room where you feel truly comfortable will always contain some kind of window place.
Now, of course, it is hard to give an exact definition of a
“place.” Essentially a “place” is a partly enclosed, distinctly identifiable spot within a room. All of the following can function as “places” in this sense: bay windows, window seats, a low window sill where there is an obvious position for a comfortable armchair, and deep alcoves with windows all around them. To make the concept of a window place more precise, here are some examples of each of these types, together with discussion of the critical features which make each one of them work.
A bay window. A shallow bulge at one end of a room, with windows wrapped around it. It works as a window place because of the greater intensity of light, the views through the side windows, and the fact that you can pull chairs or a sofa up into the bay.
 |
| A bay 'window. |
A window seat. More modest. A niche, just deep enough for the seat. It works best for one person, sitting parallel to the window, back to the window frame, or for two people facing each other in this position.
 |
| A window seat. |
TOWNS
do not allow a significant variety of life styles to emerge. People in the ghetto are usually forced to live there, isolated from the rest of society, unable to evolve their way of life, and often intolerant of ways of life different from their own.
3. In a city made of a large number of subcultures relatively small in size, each occupying an identifiable place and separated from other subcultures by a boundary of nonresidential land, new ways of life can develop. People can choose the kind of subculture they wish to live in, and can still experience many ways of life different from their own. Since each environment fosters mutual support and a strong sense of shared values, individuals can grow.
 |
| Mosaic of subcultures. |
This pattern for a mosaic of subcultures was originally proposed by Frank Hendricks. His latest paper dealing with it is “Concepts of environmental quality standards based on life styles,” with Malcolm MacNair (Pittsburg, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh, February 1969). The psychological needs which underlie this pattern and which make it necessary for subcultures to be spatially separated in order to thrive have been described by Christopher Alexander, “Mosaic of Subcultures,” Center for Environmental Structure, Berkeley, 1968. The following statement is an excerpt from that paper.