I run into a lot of people that feel a great deal of animosity about architectural theory. I think it comes the inherent shock of coming together with people that are on polar opposites of the design spectrum. For instance you have a design critic who spends most of their time analyzing and dissecting architecture, then you have a person who takes much of the architecture of the world at a passing glance. If you put those two in a room you're asking for trouble; neither understands the prerogative of the other. Having said that, this cottage by 5468796 Architecture would be a good place to bridge that gap. There are aspects of the house that would please a designer, but enough traditional elements for a layperson to appreciate. More importantly, though, at least one theoretical aspect of the project is very apparent. This cottage gives very little attention to its exterior. That's very uncommon in architecture. Most buildings are designed primarily with public space in mind, since that's where most will experience it. Yet, this project seems to be focusing on the interior. Every light is strategically places such that they illuminate all of the openings in the structure brilliantly. This says something about the architects. Creative people tend to feel confined, unable to express what they see as a far greater, yet unrealized potential. When I look at this house, it embodies a feeling of being stifled. Knowing that your fire is contained for good reason, but part of you wanting to let the flames loose. I think we can all relate to that on some level.
See more at 5468796 Architecture