Can a site itself be a gift to an architectural project and the same project return the favour in a reciprocal act of unexpected qualities?

By 1911 Rudolph Schindler had concluded that all architecture in the West leading up to the early 20th century had been fixated on structure and mass, in stark contrast to the new ‘space architecture’ he championed. His dismissive categorization of the traditional room as some kind of evolutionary relative of the cave is a reminder of the moment when a strand of western architecture blossomed from containment into openness; from a predictable past to an exciting and uncertain future - the gift of modern architecture. Today we see no conflict in accommodating both containment and openness in our architecture. Our gathering place of ideas is wider, our lives more complex and consequently the spaces we inhabit require distinct, autonomous characteristics as well as blurred thresholds that flow into each other, encouraging multiple purposes and new interpretations for living. In contemporary UK, the individual house occupies a unique position in the spectrum of architectural evolution, trapped between the twin extremes of banality and novelty. In the hands of the volume house-builder, the house is an easily-reproducible generic product for the mass market whilst for the architect it is the opportunity to create a unique, site-specific stage for a client’s life. The individual house remains one of the few typologies left where there is opportunity for experimentation with architectural and social ideas; one of the main reasons why some large practices still accept such commissions.

The late American architect Charles Moore’s witty quip about bread being cast into the waters and returning as club sandwiches reminds us that architecture at its heart can be a transformative, life-affirming process. How can such a transformation occur, given the starting point is merely building materials and a piece of land? Can the land itself be a gift to an architectural project and can the same project return the favour to the land with unexpected and welcome qualities? This project explores this question, one which I am attempting to answer in my current architectural work. This question explores Christian Norberg-Schulz’s three basic ways in which the man-made place is related to nature, namely the ability to utilize ‘visualisation, symbolization and gathering’. I use four case studies from our own work in my practice studioKAP to interrogate this question. All four projects have similar programmes and have been designed within the last 5 years in rural or suburban settings in central Scotland.