EN TR
Adaptive Domesticity Research
Context & Simulation01-03 - FURNITURE→APARTMENTWorking Note2024

Adaptive Domesticity

Why does a Tokyo apartment feel different from a Paris one? We started counting.

Scale 01-03 Multi
Typologies 5 cities
Sources Plans 1920-today
Tools Python CV
Type Working Note
Updated 2026-08
01

Walk into a Tokyo apartment. The kitchen flows into the living room. No door, no threshold. It feels open, almost exposed.

Walk into a Paris apartment. The kitchen hides behind a door. Always. The salon is for guests; the kitchen is for work. They don't mix.

Walk into an Istanbul apartment. There's a formal salon for guests, completely separate from the family living room. Two worlds under one roof.

Why? These aren't random preferences. They're cultural patterns encoded in space. Privacy gradients. Hospitality protocols. Rules about who sees what. And the question has a literature. Amos Rapoport argued in 1969 that house form follows culture before it follows climate or material. Edward T. Hall showed that comfortable distances are learned, not universal. Christopher Alexander turned the observation into a design rule he called the intimacy gradient: rooms should grow more private as you move deeper. And Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson made it measurable: redraw any plan as a graph of rooms and doors, and privacy becomes a depth you can count.

That last move is our method. This working note reads published floor plans from five cities as justified access graphs: the street at the bottom, every room a node, every door an edge. Count the steps from the street to the most private room and you have a privacy gradient you can compare between a Tokyo one-room apartment and a Marrakech riad. This page reports what the counting shows so far, and is honest about which patterns are still hypotheses.

Comparative analysis of furniture joinery across cultures

Furniture as Evidence: Semper's claim, taken literally: joint complexity may predict spatial hierarchy. A pattern we keep seeing in typologies, and still want to test properly.

02

Theoretical Framework

01

Furniture Scale

Joinery typologies as cultural evidence. Semper's claim, read literally: cultures with complex joinery tend to build more nuanced room transitions. For now a hypothesis, not a proof.

02

Room Scale

Threshold counting as space syntax. Any plan redrawn as a justified graph turns privacy into a measurable depth: doors, level changes, and implied boundaries between street and the most private room.

03

Typology Scale

A century of published floor plans, 1920 to today. Adjacencies, circulation, and privacy gradients read across housing types.

04

Cultural Synthesis

The patterns feed a typology vocabulary we want SpaceCraft to eventually understand: a scanned room means more when its cultural grammar is legible.

03

Research Process

01

Read Typologies

Published plans and typology literature from five city grammars

02

Draw the Graphs

Each plan redrawn as a justified access graph: street at the root, rooms as nodes, doors as edges

03

Count and Index

Depth, buffer zones, adjacency, visibility, and hospitality indices per typology

04

Synthesize Vocabulary

Cultural pattern vocabulary for future product integration

04

Research Phases

01

Typology Reading

Comparative reading of published plans and typology literature across five city grammars: Tokyo, Paris, Istanbul, Marrakech, Los Angeles.

02

Threshold Mapping

Each plan redrawn as a justified access graph (depthmapX plus our own Python parsing); privacy thresholds and buffer zones counted plan by plan to build the gradient index.

03

Joinery Hypothesis

Testing Semper's furniture-to-space claim against documented joinery traditions. Honest status: not yet done.

04

Product Integration

A cultural pattern vocabulary for SpaceCraft's scanned rooms. Planned.

Justified access graphs of five domestic typologies, drawn from the street node upward

Five Grammars, One Graph: Justified access graphs of the five typologies, street node at the bottom. Depth to the most private room runs from one step in an open LA loft to five in Istanbul and Marrakech plans. Note the Istanbul guest salon: it sits shallow while family life sits deep. Redrawn after Hillier and Hanson's method.

05

Key Metrics

5
City Typologies
Tokyo to Los Angeles
1→5
Threshold Range
Street to most private room
2.3×
Buffer-Zone Gap
Istanbul vs. Tokyo plans
100
Years of Plans
1920 to today
06

Key Thinkers

01

Amos Rapoport

Architect and Anthropologist

House Form and Culture (1969) is this note's thesis stated fifty years early: domestic layout follows culture first, climate and construction second. Our five grammars are Rapoport's argument made countable.

02

Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson

Space Syntax, UCL

The Social Logic of Space (1984) turned floor plans into graphs and privacy into depth. Our threshold counts are their justified graph, applied to a century of published apartment plans.

03

Christopher Alexander

Architect, 1936-2022

Pattern 127 of A Pattern Language, the intimacy gradient, prescribes what we observe in plans: rooms should grow more private with depth. Cultures disagree only on how steep the gradient should be.

04

Edward T. Hall

American Anthropologist, 1914-2009

Hall invented proxemics: the study of human spatial relationships. Comfortable distances vary by culture. Our privacy gradient metrics extend his framework to plans.

07

Case Studies

Tokyo Compact Typology

Japan

Around 32 square meters with no doors between living spaces. Privacy through ritual, not walls. Morning routines choreographed to avoid collision; the plan assumes it.

~32 m² Size
0 Thresholds

Paris Haussmann Typology

France

Classic bourgeois layout. Kitchen hidden from salon. Service corridor for staff. Roughly 95 square meters with four distinct threshold conditions. Robin Evans traced the logic: once the corridor arrived, rooms stopped opening into each other and privacy became a matter of routing.

~95 m² Size
4 Buffer Zones

Istanbul Multi-Generational Typology

Turkey

The guest salon tradition Sedad Hakki Eldem documented in his Turkish house plan typologies survives in the modern apartment: a formal room kept ready near the entrance, sealed off from family life. In graph terms, hospitality sits shallow and intimacy sits deep, and the two gradients never cross.

~140 m² Size
Isolated Guest Salon

Comparative Analysis

Illustrative sectional model: one continuous room, no interior doors

Tokyo

The Flowing Space

No doors between living areas. Privacy through ritual, not walls. Kitchen is the social center.

OpenRitual-BasedJapan
Illustrative sectional model: formal salons in front, service corridor behind

Paris

The Hidden Kitchen

Kitchen always separate. Service and served spaces don't mix. Guests see the salon, not the mess.

CompartmentalizedFormalFrance
Illustrative sectional model: guest salon walled off beside the entrance

Istanbul

The Guest Salon

Two living rooms: one for family, one for guests. Hospitality has its own architecture.

Dual ZonesHospitalityTurkey
Illustrative model: rooms wrapped around an inner courtyard

Marrakech

The Courtyard Home

Blank exterior, rich interior. All rooms face the central court. Maximum privacy from street.

IntrovertedClimate-AdaptedMorocco
05

Optimization Results

100% 75% 50% 25% 0%
5%
5%
3%
3%
1%
Istanbul
Marrakech
Tokyo
Paris
LA (Open)

Depth from street to the most private room, read as justified graphs (after Hillier and Hanson).

Scenario model: typology indices from our plan readings

08

Key Findings

01

Thresholds are countable. The distance from street to the most private room can be read off any plan: five thresholds in Istanbul and Marrakech typologies, one in an open-plan LA loft.

1 to 5 thresholds
02

Turkish apartment plans carry roughly 2.3 times more buffer zones than Tokyo plans. Hospitality protocols are encoded in circulation: the guest salon sits shallow in the graph while family space sits deep.

2.3× more buffers
03

Parisian kitchens read consistently smaller than Tokyo kitchens in same-sized plans, and always behind a door. The privacy gradient trumps cooking space.

Smaller, always hidden
04

Furniture joints may predict spatial hierarchy. Cultures with complex joinery (Japan, Scandinavia) tend to have more nuanced room transitions. A pattern we keep seeing, not yet a proof.

Hypothesis to test
09

Honest Limitations

Data Dependency

This is plan-reading, not fieldwork. Published plans show intention; they don't show how families actually live.

Data Dependency

Our sources skew middle-class and urban. Social housing and luxury follow different grammars.

Behavioral Assumption

The joinery-to-hierarchy link is a hypothesis we find compelling. We haven't tested it at a sample size that would satisfy a statistician.

Temporal Limitation

Plans from 1920 and life in 2026: building stock evolves slower than domestic ritual.

References & Data Sources

Literature

Amos Rapoport, House Form and Culture (1969)

The founding argument: sociocultural forces shape house form before climate, materials, or technology.

Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson, The Social Logic of Space (1984)

Justified graphs and depth: the method behind our threshold counts.

Alexander, Ishikawa and Silverstein, A Pattern Language (1977)

Pattern 127, Intimacy Gradient: rooms should grow more private with depth.

Edward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension (1966)

Proxemics: spatial comfort is cultural, not universal.

Robin Evans, Figures, Doors and Passages (1978)

How the corridor rewired domestic privacy in the nineteenth century.

Sedad Hakki Eldem, Turk Evi Plan Tipleri (1954)

The Turkish house plan typology: sofa layouts and the architecture of hospitality.

Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture (1851)

Joinery and weaving as architecture's origin: the source of our furniture-scale hypothesis.

Junichiro Tanizaki, In Praise of Shadows (1933)

Cultural grammars of light: why penumbra is a value, not a defect.

Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space (1958)

The house as felt space; a reminder of what our indices cannot count.

11

Conclusion

Domestic space encodes culture. The way a door is positioned, where the kitchen sits, how many thresholds separate street from bedroom: these aren't random choices. They're cultural grammars, and some of them can be counted on any floor plan once it is redrawn as a graph. This note is our running attempt to count them carefully.

Limitations

  • Plan-reading, not fieldwork
  • Middle-class urban focus

Future Directions

  • Extend to social housing typologies
  • Test the joinery hypothesis properly
  • Publish the threshold dataset