Home as a playground

Rionach Ni Neill

The basic unit for which the architect designs is the body. It is my view that the homes we live in today are an obstacle to healthy movement practise because their design is a reflection of a restrictive concept of how we can, and should, move.

For our health�s sake, domestic design, and the principles upon which it is based, needs to be rethought. The validity of our present movement culture, the limited view of appropriate and possible physical behaviour upon which it is based, and the domestic movement practise it engenders, need to be challenged. Architectural education needs to foster a greater understanding of the human body and its expansive physical vocabulary, so that anatomically sound movement and bio-mechanics become the central tenet of a body-centric architecture.

Good posture is that in which the line connecting the body�s centres of weight is perpendicular to the floor. In this alignment, the weight of the body is transferred through the centre of each joint - the weight of head through the centre of the vertebra, centre of the hip, knee, ankle and foot ensuring efficient, balanced muscular activity and minimal tension. Elastic and flexible muscles and tendons allow for wide range of joint movement, giving a 360 degree reach along the frontal, sagittal and transverse planes.

The young child up to the age of three moves in good alignment. Its movements are based on rules of efficient mechanics, as observed when it shifts smoothly from sitting to crawling to standing, and then falls back to the floor without injury. When playing with an object, or picking it up, the child automatically lowers its centre of gravity below it, dropping to a deep squat.

Children worldwide, regardless of culture, share these good postural habits and a fascination with expanding their physical reach. But, as we grow, our natural posture and movement habits are shaped by our environment. We adopt the repertoire and stances of our surrounding movement culture, by which I mean the received norms of how we use our bodies to fulfil physical tasks. By adulthood, we may accept these habits as given, but a quick global or historical tour of domestic habits, reveals much variety.

There are two basic differentiations: cultures with lifestyles that foster good alignment, and those that don�t. Good movement cultures incorporate varied movement habits in fulfilling everyday tasks, such as walking barefoot or in flat shoes, sitting on floors and on haunches, carrying objects on their heads, running etc. These result in the maintenance of good dynamic alignment, body tone and flexibility. Take for example, sitting on one�s haunches, a common working posture of eastern cultures and of young children at play. In this crouch, the deep pelvic and leg muscles are toned, the flexibility of hip joints increased, and, as the centre of gravity is lowered, there is less strain on the body while interacting with objects.

Conversely, many aspects of modern Western lifestyles foster poor physical practise, in particular our decreasing mobility and use of chairs for seating. Our daily movement repertoire has become extremely limited, with minimal physical exertion. Activities natural in childhood, such as stretching, squatting, climbing, swinging limbs, arching, even skipping or running, are practised so little that they become unfamiliar, uncomfortable and avoided.

From school-going age we spend up to 8-9 hours a day in a seated position. This places great strain on our bodies as the spine is not designed to bear most of our weight on its base. The seated position causes the spine to slump out of its natural s-shape, placing excessive pressure on the lower back. The forward lean adopted while working or eating causes even further compression. This strain is further compounded by soft furnishings - as used in the domestic environment. The semi-lying position they engender reduce the muscle tone needed for good alignment. Hip joints, prevented from moving through their full range, lose their flexibility. The body�s structure is put under pressure as it attempts to compensate for these imbalances.

Just to exemplify, write down your physical diary of the last day. For many, it will consist of sitting in a car or bus to travel to work; sitting at a desk, possibly alleviated by short intervals of walking (on concrete, in heels); leaning over a counter to prepare food; sitting on chairs to eat; housework, resting on the sofa, and going to bed. Exercising� is allocated a specific time and place, making it an exceptional occurrence. Ergonomics is used to remedy the damages caused by this movement culture, rather than replacing it with an inherently more healthy system.

Our idea of what is natural or normal in movement is becoming increasingly limited. Those who do utilise their physical potential - such as athletes and dancers - are seen to possess exceptional abilities, rather that merely maximising the abilities inherent in all. In fact, the healthy state for the body is movement. It shifts position about every three minutes. Stilled bodies atrophy - muscles and joints stiffen, pulling the body out of efficient alignment; blood and lymphatic circulation become sluggish; metabolism slows, organ function efficiency decreases; even our emotional states can be affected.

Unfortunately, we inhabit a Catch 22 situation. Our built environment is a product of the values of our accumulated culture, including our physical mores. But, in its present form, it contributes to the degeneration of our physical health, limiting our movement. As our lives become increasingly building bound, the role of buildings in shaping our movement and postural habits gains importance.

The home is of particular note, as it is the more constant environment, inhabited across a wide age range, in which many of our physical lifestyle customs are acquired and passed on. But a general mapping of domestic movement patterns reveals a confined repertoire. For instance, postural alignment in domestic activities is predominantly upright, leaning over a work surface, or seated, both of which are stressful on the body. Layout, with vertical walls separating functional spaces, constricts movement into upright, parallel, patterns, with little scope for expansive actions.

Considering the negative health effects of our present movement culture, it is crucial to address the received wisdom of appropriate movement habits, to examine them on the basis of anatomical alignment and efficient action, and to look to adopt a body-centric lifestyle practise.

As a corollary we need to examine our physical environment, and, based on body-friendly values, create one that would contribute to the return to more healthy and active movement habits. So, the architect needs to realign their focus to the level of best practise for the individual human body. The application of these ideas to a design brief could result in a very different model of domestic architecture to the current one.

What information about the body and its movement is considered necessary for architectural design? When considering the uses to which a home is put, what postures and actions are envisaged? In architectural education, what kind of information about our physicality is disseminated?

What are building guidelines based on, and why? What are space/person, room dimensions, ceiling heights, door sizes, based on, and why? The ranges of movement and postures shown in anthropometric data are very narrow, and mainly show actions in upright or seated positions. Room dimensions seem to be based on the minimum space necessary to accommodate furniture. While these may be set just as guidelines, they also serve to limit expectations of domestic activity, and contribute to a static view of architecture - of buildings as containers, rather than spaces facilitating action.

Home design reveals an image of the human body as fragile, and needful of external support for even such basic actions as sitting. To protect it, physical effort, and as a corollary, movement, is to be reduced to the bare minimum.

But if we had a different view of this body, wouldn�t we design differently? Why not have an image of the body as movement, and recognise our animal and child origins? That it is natural for us to scramble, roll, climb, hang upside down, and for our limbs to extend, to travel on all fours, even as adults? That the body can support itself internally while carrying out functions? That effort can be positive? Recognising our potentially extensive physical vocabulary would open up greater design possibilities.

It is necessary to return to first principles, to imagine other ways that we can go about our domestic lives, and design accordingly. The essential question is, not to design for our present movement habits, but to design to change them, to create buildings that would encourage and facilitate maximum movement.

As a last note, the body-friendly issue concerns not just physical health, but play. In line with decreasing daily activity is decreasing physical imagination and action. Just as we lose the perfect alignment of childhood, we also lose the spontaneous joy of moving and playing. I would argue for a playful architecture that would allow for a more imaginative, expansive and freer physical existence, that would create a home that could engender a sense of fun and play, and that would make healthy movement a pleasure rather than a duty.

Bibliography
Feldenkrais, M., 1972, Awareness Through Movement, New York, Harper Collins
Franklin, E, 1996, Dynamic Alignment Through Imagery, Champaign, Il, Human Kinetics
Rolland, J., 1984, Inside Motion: An Ideokinetic basis for Movement Education, Northampton, MA, Contact Editions
Sweigard, L., 1978, Human Movement Potential: Its Ideokinetic Facilitation, New York, Dodd Mead

Rionach Ni Neill is a contemporary dancer and choreographer