Floor plans

In design, the well-composed floor plan is the foundation for every subsequent decision.  Made up of places and connections, floor plan designing starts with attending to solar and wind orientations, to what affecting conditions are beyond the immediate area, and to the particular needs.  Renaissance architect, Alberti had a word for it: ‘compartition’ where “All the power of invention, all the skill and experience in the art of building, are called upon in compartition; compartition alone divides up the whole building into the parts by which it is articulated, and integrates its every part by composing all the lines and angles into a single, harmonious work that respects utility, dignity, and delight.”  (I.9)  This is true for design at all scales from the city to the house and gardens, to a table setting, to an object.

Taking the available whole and designing the parts is an act either of subdivision or assembly.  Design by subdivision has a sequential procedure starting with identifying the dominant or most important, usually the largest, room.  This place can have the ideal exposure, size, and relationship to all the other parts.  Then the rest of the desired places must fit into the remaining space.  The advantage of this method is that the main room can be designed without compromise, and this sets the vocabulary of materials and details for the entire project.  The disadvantage is that the finished floor plan cannot grow.  To compensate for this, expansion has to occur with additional blocks, often seen as separate but connected wings to the main structure.

Design by assembly is very different.  This method allows every room to have its correct design following the requirements for individual places.  The advantage of this approach is that each room has the desired size and attributes.  The disadvantage is that this often results in a chaotic mess of a floor plan.  There is no visible logic or order to the plan, and it’s hard to find your bearings and know where you are.  Medieval city plans are an example.  The resolution is to have a clear and strong organizing “spine” about which all rooms have a dependent connection.  The strategy of a “spine” – often a wide hallway – has the advantage in that its growth is not limited by what is already built.  You simply make more of it.

Knowing which approach makes better floor plans is a good question.  The subdivided method wants level land, and yields buildings with a strong presence in the landscape and commanding prospects.  The assembled method appreciates undulating topographic form, and displays an organic relationship between building and land.  Either type of floor plan is capable of utility, dignity, and design – Alberti’s take on the classical Vitruvian triad for beautiful design – and each is appropriate in specific situations.  Floor plans that employ one or the other have clarity and harmony in their original construction as well in their future development and use.