Spatializing Ambient Intimacy is an attempt to define new collectives through the re-imagination of the dwellings we live in, in order to create more intimate relationships with those we inhabit spaces with. The current condition of apartment living creates an isolated occupant, and encourages separation from one’s neighbors. We are close in proximity, but distant socially. Whether intentional or not, a diversion from this type of apartment condition has begun through the current phenomenon of collective living. Tech companies all over the world are developing apartment buildings which strive on marketing “complimentary” services and common areas which create, what they refer to as, enjoyable social platforms for their residents. However, in reality the spaces designated for collective activities are located in the most inconvenient places within the building which a resident will rarely use, and definitely never stumble upon. They are in locations to which one has to have an intention to go to rather than something encountered by chance. With today’s high use of electronics and social media, these spaces become almost useless when it comes to actually connecting people. Since the design and construction of such developments is driven by profit, little attention is paid to the needs of the people living there; therefore, units sometimes as small as 50 sq ft. with no windows rent out for a ridiculously high price. This way of living is similar to so many unsuccessful social building models such as the London Rookeries, NY Tenements, and San Francisco SROs; where the standard of living was really low, the spaces were small and lacked in privacy. A very successful aspect of these models, as mentioned before, is the gravitation to a more socially connected building and its deviation from the completely isolated apartment, which only allows minimal contact between those sharing the building, “The very simple argument for the rise of co-living: is that people need people.”1 There is clearly a global understanding of collectivity being a positive thing, as we are social beings that benefit from interaction with others.
More often than not, we try to compensate for lack of relationships with those in close proximity physically, through the development of “friends” on social media. Here we share information about ourselves and receive information about others, but are in actuality isolated and have no reciprocity in the sharing process. I think that the way in which collectivity is created within the current developments encourages these types of relationships and occurs in a very staged manner.
This life we live today is contradictory to the way in which we are made to develop relationships. The Social Penetration Theory by Irwin Altman explains how we naturally develop relationships, and it happens gradually in layers with reciprocity In architecture, these layers of intimacy can be mapped in different ways within dwellings, through the use of the plan as a tool which enables these relationships to occur. The developer co-living models allow us to live and collect, but create a definitive line between living and collecting. A dissolution of this line needs to occur in order to achieve a space which serves as a platform to develop intimate relationships which reflect the way in which live. This thesis explores the design of this platform, through the use of the plan as a tool and the incorporation of the threshold as a device for creating spatial ambiguity.