Living in this house has made me increasingly aware of how spatial arrangement influences everyday behaviour without enforcing rigid rules. The house functions as a layered system of spaces that respond to age, routine, and interaction rather than fixed hierarchies of gender or authority. Its organisation allows different members of the family to coexist while maintaining both shared and individual territories.
The entrance hall acts as a transitional threshold between the public realm and the domestic interior. Architecturally, it operates as a neutral buffer space—neither fully private nor entirely public. This is where guests are received, initial interactions occur, and the tone of the house is established. The spatial openness and direct access from the main entrance allow this area to function independently from the more intimate zones of the house, ensuring that private life remains undisturbed during social encounters.
The ground floor accommodates the rooms allotted to the children of the house. This level is characterised by a higher degree of movement and informality. Circulation patterns here are flexible, with frequent transitions between bedrooms and shared spaces. The spatial proximity of private rooms to common areas encourages interaction and visibility, supporting an environment that is dynamic and adaptive. The ground floor therefore functions as an active zone, reflecting the changing routines and energy levels of younger occupants.
In contrast, the upper first floor is occupied by the elders of the family. This level is spatially calmer and more inward-focused. Movement patterns here are slower and repetitive, shaped by daily routines rather than constant change. The architectural layout prioritises privacy and acoustic separation, allowing this floor to function as a zone of retreat. The vertical separation between generations does not imply social distance; instead, it allows different age groups to occupy the house according to their physical comfort and lifestyle rhythms.
The kitchen is one of the most significant spaces in the house from a socio-spatial perspective. While women occupy this space more frequently due to daily routines, it is not a gender-exclusive zone. Men also enter the kitchen, particularly during shared cooking activities or informal interactions. This overlapping use challenges rigid gender zoning and transforms the kitchen into a shared workspace rather than a segregated service area. Architecturally, its connection to adjacent utility and dining spaces allows continuous movement and visual engagement with the rest of the house.
The dining area functions as the primary social core of the house. It is here that daily routines intersect—meals become moments of conversation, negotiation, disagreement, and reconciliation. Unlike other spaces that may be occupied intermittently, the dining area is used collectively and regularly. Spatially, it acts as a mediator between private bedrooms and service spaces, reinforcing its role as a shared zone of interaction. The architecture supports prolonged occupation, allowing people to sit together even beyond the act of eating, strengthening familial bonds.
A key characteristic of the house is the absence of rigid gender-based spatial divisions. Movement throughout the house is determined more by time, activity, and necessity than by identity. Spaces are shared, overlapped, and redefined throughout the day. This fluidity allows the house to remain adaptable, accommodating changing roles and routines without architectural conflict.
Vertical circulation through the staircase and lift plays an important role in maintaining connectivity between floors. Daily movement across levels reinforces visual and social relationships between generations. Although bedrooms are segregated by age, the shared spaces ensure that the house functions as a unified whole rather than a collection of isolated zones.
The terrace level forms the final layer in the spatial hierarchy of the house. Unlike the inhabited floors below, this level is primarily used for storage and is the least occupied by family members. Movement to this floor is occasional and functional rather than habitual. Its limited human presence highlights a contrast between lived and auxiliary spaces, demonstrating how not all architectural areas are defined by constant occupation.
Overall, the house operates as a responsive spatial system rather than a prescriptive one. Its architecture supports coexistence, interaction, and privacy simultaneously. Through everyday use, the spaces are continually negotiated and reinterpreted by the occupants. Living within this house has made it evident that architecture is not only experienced visually or formally, but through movement, routine, and shared occupation over time.