Are small spaces easy?

Image via http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/tag/small-house/

Usually when you see a big house you imagine a giant budget behind it. Luxury is often associated with big size with imposing bigness.
That you look at it and go "wow this is so big there is so much space here!" But the average living space  has gotten smaller and smaller ever since the baby boom. We live in an era where efficiency is the most priced attribute.

Smart phones get slimmer and lighter in weight, they get more capacity better video and audio quality and we all favor this as the better thing.
We also now understand how much work it is to make something smaller more efficient. Designing a small space that has all the commodities that a person may need has become a race and more important every day.
Houses are particularly tricky since not many other projects have the special program that houses do. If you where to categorize and break down all the activates that you do in your home, you cook you sleep, you have friends over, you watch movies, you shower, I mean, hopefully....

Each of those things have to find a way to interact harmoniously and comfortably, and that is pretty hard to pull off, sounds easy but is not as I illustrated in this blog post related to poorly designed homes affect the life of the people living in it.
Any way so we know designing a house is not that simple, how space will interact with each other, now try imagining cramming all those activities in a smaller than normal space.
There are many tools in architectural design to ease the way into the process of designing small living places, and making them appropriate and comfortable; like diversifying the use of the same place, or gaining area by making multiple levels in a floor plan.
But the truth is, not all tricks work for all picks, and  the only way to know if a new innovative and efficient small plan design works, is by experimenting.
So to answer this post's question; no, smaller spaces are not easier to design, if anything, they present more of a challenge, but depending on who you ask, when done well, small spaces are just the best.

Architectural formula.

A lot of things have to be theorized, tested and figured out in order to create an architectural project, depending on scale and nature of the project in question many months can be dedicated only to the creative process even before presenting a cohesive proposal of a project to the client. The means of creation, that is what happens during the 'figuring out stuff' in a project is a creative process, but are processes harmful for the creativity?

We have to understand that ideas in our heads rarely act as a linear road. Usually it's kind of the contrary; from point A to B, to C, to A again, and now C needs reworking, and B has gone missing from the whole equation, that is why many proposals of the same project have to be made.

Different revisions of ideas generate a variety of options of a project; if the creative process was a straight line we would just have to make models, and floor plans once.

Now with time is only logical to develop a way of scheduling and handling the design process in some sort of structure; the process of designing becomes a byproduct of experience and practice, rather than vice versa.
 Now is there a point where a seasoned designer polishes his or her design process so much that it becomes a recipe?

The possibility that, creative ideas can become mechanically produced is, not only not very romantic or appealing but kind of disheartening.
Does experience gets on the way of spontaneity?
Think of the example of an architect running a business, dealing with real projects, budgets and deadlines; to optimize the way ideas  and solutions for projects are produced is key to meet the demands of a firm.

Can an architect whose job is in essence create, also become imprisoned by repetition and systematization ?

Speaking with buildings.

The architectural discourse that says that a building should be very versatile in its design in order to accommodate very different necessities over time, without it requiring much modification, if any, is a very useful one. I do find myself, however, not wanting buildings to lose some sort of character and defining traits (be it on the functional/space sense, or the pure looks of a building), since, when you strip away the specificities of a building in order to make it more standardized in a "one size fits all" kind of way, not only does architecture loses its symbolism and impact, but also its soul.

Soulfulness in buildings is I think an often overlooked element of design. Of course a constructions is nota conscious being so how and why would it have a soul? But we, the human being who inhabit it do have some sort of perceptive anemic and energetic state. Call it a physiological reaction, or a spiritual one, we connect and respond to spaces, our sensitivities are tapped and triggered by the stimulus in our surroundings.

So, is abandoning provocative and not very adaptable forms and ornaments in spaces a way to escape the inevitable reaction and association that human being give to spaces?

Not at all, inevitable means inevitable, and even not trying to say anything with a spaces says something. Much like in a conversation even silence has meaning, some times more so than words.
Intended or not a building that is speaking is one that has triggers and conveys information to its users, spaces, colors, functionality, architectural elements and styles, all of these elements speak multitudes to a person.
Even a user of the space who perceives him or herself as insensitive to architecture is acting under the spell of the building he is currently using.

People have a respectful, solemn and ominous behavior on churches. Is it culture and upbringing? May be part of it is, but a huge chunk of that behavior comes from the sheer anemic state caused by the architectural characteristics of the building itself; usually a lot of empty negative space above One's head, all visual points oriented to the altar, or preacher's spot, the different levels o heights, the tall windows hat let in filtered light. All of those components, speak in a language that has no words, but that every human being knows.

Surroundings can tap into our hard wired psyche to give specific responses, just like smiling and crying happen almost in automatic. If buildings can talk, we better make them say something good.

-M