Philosophy is not a proto-architectural manual, but its canonical treatments of Architecture do precipitate a depth of considerations about building, dwelling, and thinking. Dwelling is not necessarily answerable to physical occupation, thus a fuller inquiry of the pragmatic, socio-cultural, spatial, temporal, and mechanical realities of the domicile require an uncoupling from a preeminent attention to material facts and the secular anthropological recordings.
The grounding for this inference is two-fold. First, If we find that the physical and temporal certainties of the contemporary domicile have not advanced in potency enough to quell the abject anxieties of modern living, then we coincidently discover an invitation to thinking both induced by philosophy and prompted by architecture. Second, a survey of domesticity as a contemporaneous historical phenomena returns an empirical disassociation between place and Being. An acute alienation made all the more distinctive by the ebb of latent architectural meanings from the cosmogenous to the corporeal.
So then, at the dire expense of substance and communication, this era’s dwelling places are chiefly deferent to recursive aesthetic interests. We arrived at an age where the ambiguities of modernity have beset building and everyday life offering a residence that is Prosaic and unfamiliar with touchstones central to architectural theory; and age of un-sheltering shadows insensitive to the lights of authentic domesticity
The problem of the house must be answered through a timeless and planted dwelling. This project is informed by all the program requirements and conceived as an resonant refuge. With a footprint of 8.5 m x 22 m, the regulating geometry of this house is subdivided into a pleasant asymmetrical megaton.