Study on Space Configuration and Its Effect on Privacy Provision in Traditional Malay and Iranian Courtyard House

Asiah Abdul Rahim 1 and FatinZahida Abu Hassan2

1Department of Architecture, at the Kulliyyah of Architecture & Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur

2 Kulliyyah of Architecture & Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur

Abstract: Housing design has significantly and gradually changing due to the mass production of housing, modernization of technological advancement and human thoughtsthat eventually has contributed to a new interpretation, and definition of privacy among human. This paper proposes to investigate the spatial study of typical traditional houses layout from two different regions and its effects on the level of privacy provided, focusing on the regulatory mechanism used by both precedents. This paper, to some extent attempts to reveal few strategies from the traditional Malay and Iranian house that may be adopted as solution in designing contemporary house with adequate level of privacy to fulfil the complex needs of human. The methodology applied will be based on table research, historical analysis and plan analysis of typical layout traditional Malay and Iranian house. Result has shown that the Malays preferably regulate their privacy by behavioural mechanism rooted from religious and cultural norms which has offers more flexibility; by providing multi-functioning spaces with minimum partition and boundaries. However, the Iranians used to prioritize partitioning and clear identifiable types of spaces chiefly due to its climatic needs, also offer certain degree of flexibility and had the potential to be expanded for specific ceremonies.

Keywords: Islamic Housing, Privacy, Traditional Malay House, Traditional Iranian Courtyard House, Space

1. Privacy and Its Regulation The need of privacy regulation is universal but may be varied from one person to other person, from

culture to culture, cultures (Altman, 1977; Altman &Chemers, 1980; Gauvain, Altman &Fahim, 1983; Fahey, 1995) period to period as society bonds continually reconstructing with the transformation of different socio-culture needs. Privacy, according to Altman (1977) and Bell et al. (2001) can be regulated through behavioural mechanism (Georgiou, 2006) – rules, manners, hierarchies, psychological means as internal withdrawal and deeper socialization including verbal and non-verbal behaviour which are much influenced by socio-cultural factors, and environmental mechanism – namely personal space and territoriality with spatial separation and physical elements (Sundstrom and Altman; 1974; Gifford, 1997; Altman, 1977; Georgiou, 2006; Ardrey, 1966; Sommer, 1969; Becker, 1973).

Many literatures have suggested that environmental mechanism, which is by means of territoriality and marking boundaries are the most practical mechanism used in achieving an adequate level of privacy, in compared to behaviour mechanism (managing their psychological distance from others via verbal and nonverbal means; such as voice characteristics and eye contact). A study by Julia W. Robinson (2001) perceiving privacy as a static possession by different spaces, which is in contradict with a study done by Nathan Witte (2003), that suggested that space should be supportive of the user’s desire and expectations of privacy and perceive privacy a dynamic property in spaces, by creating options or places of release from contact and observation.

Due to the relatively open spatial structure, many regularly occurring community activities tend to evolve gradually rather than having to be scheduled (Robinson, 2001). Robinson (2001) argues that through a series of spaces with different degrees of privacy, the autonomy of the resident within a small social group is provided. 1 Malaysia arasiah@iium.edu.my 2 Malaysia fatinzahida@yahoo.com

115

Accordingly, many scholars have suggested that a clear and identifiable division and delineation of spaces in the internal layout gives a clear compartmentalization to space and make the building legible, which is similarly to what has Robinson (2001) has suggested in the aforementioned. It emphasizes on the ability or power of autonomy of an individual, as well as controlling social interaction in any particular space. A human spatial behaviour study by PerlaSerfaty-Garzon (1985), cited that Heidegger (1958); by which he means that dwelling must provide space for the experience of the sacred has signifies that a spaces should be configured and defined clearly, what is public and what is private is separate but totally interdependent domains (Carruthers, 1984). A series of sequential spaces with different degrees of privacy, the autonomy of the residents within a small social group is provided, granted by power possessed to control over time, space, activity and social interaction (Robinson, 2001).

Use and positioning of individuals in space is important for experiencing and regulating their territory and accordingly the degree of desired privacy. Thus privacy is regulated in order to restrict the public from seeing, knowing, hearing any activities, family private realm unlawfully without asking permission by means of spatial configuration and design elements to achieve the desired and expected level of privacy, in regards with the social, religious and culture acceptance and adaptability.

2. Inter-Relation of Space Configuration and Privacy Provision Space configuration influence the way people find their way inside the building and spatial behaviour of

any individual. Hillier According to Hillier (1999), ordering of space is the purpose of building, not the physical object itself. In this sense, buildings are not just objects, but transformations of space through objects. Therefore, configuration is a fundamental relation of form and space, which is appropriated in the processes, by which buildings are transformed from bodily objects to social and cultural objects. In both senses, society acquires a definite and recognizable spatial order (Hillier and Hanson, 1989).

Many scholars have stated that, the hierarchy and sequential of spaces and the juxtaposition of these spaces is the determinant factors in regulating privacy. Public spaces always been referred to spaces where most social activities take place (living areas) and social integration is promoted with unrestricted visibility, aural and accessibility. Private space, in contrast to public areas used to be more segregated (bedrooms, female domains) and offers more privacy, secrecy, concealments and isolation from the attention and interest from the public that constitutes with visual, aural and accessibility restriction. Public space, basically dominated by male, and can be defined by the absence of women (Chowdhury, 1992). Conversely, private space is usually associated with females (Mernissi, 1987; Esposito, 1991; AlMunajjed, 1997).

Consequently, as many scholars have emphasized the importance of physically recognizable and identifiable spaces with certain degree of privacy this mechanism seems more practical in such a way that it gives clear sign to everyone on the system of zones with different meanings for social interaction and level of privacy, already functionally (Altman, 1975; Sommer, 1969; Becker, 1973; Carruthers, 1984; Robinson, 2001; Sundstrom et al., 1980; Porta, 2001; Amorim, 1997; 2001). Spaces that are indefinite and it is not clear whether they are public or private allow less control on social interaction, create conflicts and decrease it as a result (Ramezani and Hamidi, 2010). In reality, all these approaches are undeniably correct.

Due to the mass-production of contemporary housing layouts with lack of privacy provision and culturally irresponsiveness, unsatisfied residents start to renovate their house accordingly to their desired level of privacy while some have to carefully manage the multipurpose spaces with the help of movable partitions, the power of ownership and the maintenance of self-identity to increase or decrease social interaction.

3. Traditional Malay House The principal idea of spatial organization employed in traditional Malay house associated with socio-

cultural and religious responsive (Asiah, 2008). The most prominent element of this traditional house is the flexibility use of space. Most activities were done sitting on the floor, which is similar to the Japanese. The open plan with minimum physical boundaries offers flexibility on the space usage as well as enhancing air ventilation in and out from the house.Hierarchy of spaces and spatial boundary in these houses are created by

116

placing the (rumahibu) fundamenta

Privacycultural norplaced morseparation igender sepafront and opis reserved f

The rec(language) ifront of the the house thon a lower house (Gibbinternal courumahibuan

Fig 1: Typic

The houflexible expveranda) to (main housused to takentertaininghouse to thesocial intera

4. TradiThe sp

cultural neeThe widespprotection w

most importis usually

al of respect fy in Malay trrm, rather thre emphasis, in the traditioaration by apen space in for the femalcognition ofis taught at helders, the g

hrough the dlevel of the bs, 1987, p.urtyards wh

nd dapur.

cal layout plan

use is basedpansion systwelcome thee) which is e place, atta

g the guests, e kitchen (daaction betwe

itional Iraatial charact

eds. There wpread use of which expre

tant sections higher fromfor one anothraditional houhan having m

rather than onal Malay hccommodatifront of the hle occupantsf respectinghome as earlguests’ seramdifference in

serambiwou. 27). Highehich are con

n of the traditan

d on the concem. Basicalle guest who reserved ma

ached to it issleeping andapur), the feen the femal

anian Couteristics of t

was a harmoncourtyard h

essed in the

on a higher m serambigaher particularuse is mainl

more partitiopersonal int

house (Yuaning them inthouse is ded and guests.

g one’s privly as they wembi area is selevels and p

uld feel comer floor levensidered as

ional Malay hnd female dom

cept of multly, traditionais mainly de

ainly for the s serambisamd doing domemale occuples take place

urtyard Htraditional Iny between phouse in the ir brilliantly

level from thantung and srly to the leay regulated bns and bountimacy wher

n, 1991). Howto specific sedicated for ma

vacy and elere children. eparated fromlacement of

mfortable to cls signify mtransition b

house, from thmain (red).Sou

ti-structures, al Malay hoedicated for t

family and manaik, whi

mestic chores.ants and feme.

House Iranian courtpeople’s neeMiddle East

y building la

he others, forsamanaik. Taders and eldbased on beh

ndaries. The reby this canwever traditiections (Nasale users, wh

ders, called To avoid th

m the privateinternal wal

converse withmore private

boundary ar

he front and murce: Gibbs, 19

achieved byouse has an the male guefemale gues

ich considere. Then a pas

male guests’

tyard houseseds and the pt especially ayout and sp

r example, (FThis height hders in the Mhavioral mecimportance

n be seen frional Malay sir& Wan Tehile the rear a

budipekerthe impropriete living spacls (Farah, 20hout disturbspaces, whe

re usually e

male space (yel987

y the basic copen balcon

est. Entering st is the larged as dry ansageway or sdomain whe

s reflect natphysical charin Iran appepatial config

Figure 1) thehierarchy illalay society.chanism rootof communom the lackhouse is bui

eh, 1996). Band more enc

i(etiquette) ty of childrenes and other

010). Thus, ging the occuere selang, serected low

llow), semi-pu

construction ny (anjung, j

the house, thgest where mnd clean spaselangconneere food prep

tural, geograracteristics oears to prioriguration and

e main houselustrates the. ted from theity has been

k of physicalilt to control

Basically theclosed space

and bahasan walking inactivities of

guests sittingupants of theserambi and

wer than the

ublic (green)

method andjemurung orhe rumahibumost activityace, used forects the mainparation and

aphical, andof the house.itize privacyd patterning.

e e

e n l l e e

a n f g e d e

d r u y r n d

d .

y .

117

Entering thrand could busually octaand even seSelection oconnected tform the pa(Memarian

Figure 2: Th

Walkingarea wouldhousehold. place whenwidely been

The pri(birooni). Phouse, whicusually willwealthy houseasonal and

Creatingflexible andarchitectureindependen

5. ConclOne of

emphasis onhas been plaadequate levused. Envir

rough the dobe used as aagonal in plaerves as a dirof private quthe entrance assageway uand Brown,

e courtyard mthe concept o

g deeper throd be carefull

The public cn there are gn applied in tivate spaces

Public spacesch is near or l be strategicusehold and d diurnal mog different kd had the poe.Harmoniouce and are al

lusion the vital iss

n the protectaced upon wvel of privaconmental me

oor, a vestibua temporary ran with a plarect access t

uarters couldto the court

usually lead 2006).

makes distanceof birooni-and

ough a passaly designed courtyard wiguests cominthis type of h (andaroonis especially adjacent to t

cally located still, yet it

ovements as kinds of spacotential to b

usly connectelways separa

ues in housiion of woma

woman with rcy for womaechanism by

ule, bent entreception roace for peopto the upper d be determityard. The in

to a corner

e between pubdarooni in tra

ageway, one closer to th

ill be the focng. The birohouses in Irani) were arraspaces to enthe entrance at the rear pis still difficstated by Shce for differbe expandeded to each oated from the

ing is the prian and familyregard to theian, both mecy means of ph

trance or hasom for the g

ple to sit. In floors and roined, or reinntention was r of the cou

lic (yellow renaditional Irania

will head to he entrance cal point of mooni-andaron.

anged in sucntertain gueswhile the pr

part of the hocult to achiearif, Zain anrent functiond for specificother in the e others by in

ivacy provisy realm as a ir privacy anchanisms; behysical mech

shti(numbereguest who dsome housesoof and to thnforced by t

to block dirurtyard, whe

ndered space)an courtyard h

the guest areunlike for t

meeting and ooni(Figure 2

ch a way thts would pro

rivate spaces ouses.Howevve completed Surat (200

ns, in contradc ceremoniedesign, the

ntermediary a

ion. In Islamwhole, socia

nd freedom, iehavioural anhanism emph

ed 3 in Figudid not need s, hashticonthe corridor hthe shape ofrect sight to

ere there wa

) and private ahouse. Source

ea and courtythe female the place wh

2)concept of

hat is away obably be lodedicated fo

ver it would e sexual segr03). dict to the Mes, were one

areas of theareas (Haji-Q

mic culture, Ially and physin compared nd environmhasis on the

ure 2) is a stoto enter the

tained the mheading to thf the passagthe interior.

as no househ

area (red rendee: Asiah, p.73

yard. The maand private here most acf spatial org

from the puocated in the or the femaleonly be fullyregation whe

Malays, whice of the abile house enjoQassemi, 200

Islam has plsically. Greatto man. In r

mental mechapracticality

opping pointe house. It is

main entrancehe courtyard.eway which In a linear

hold activity

ered space) in

ale or guestsarea of the

ctivities takeganization is

ublic spacesfront of the

e householdsy applied forere there are

ch were alsolities of thisoy complete03).

laced a greatter emphasisregulating ananism can beof providing

t s e .

h r y

n

s’ e e s

s e s r e

o s e

t s n e g

118

physically recognizable and identifiable spaces in such a way that it gives clear distinction to everyone on the system of zones with different meanings for social interaction and level of privacy, apart from the behavioural mechanism; with the assistance of religious and cultural norm and knowledge. Recognizing these traditional strategies and privacy regulatory from both countries’ rooted from their culture and life style can help modern architects and designers to draw suitable contemporary house design. People really need a house that response to all his duties, not only merely be a shelter. Regardless the modern limitation, thisprivacy regulatory mechanisms can be used in contemporary houses in both countries, Iran and Malaysia accordingly.

6. References [1] AsiahA.R, (2008) Housing from the Islamic Perspective(1sted.)IIUM Press, International Islamic University

Malaysia.

[2] AsiahA.R,(2011) Architectural Heritage Study in Iran: Haghighi House. (1st ed) Kuala Lumpur: IIUMPress, International Islamic University Malaysia. p. 73

[3] Georgiou, M. (2006).Architectural privacy: A topological approach to relational design problems.M.Sc. thesis, London: University College London (UCL).

[4] Ju, S.R. and S.B. Omar. (2011) A Typology Of Modern Housing In Malaysia 1st South East Asia Housing Forum of ARCH, 6-7 October 2011, Seoul, Korea.

[5] Memarian, G., & Brown, F. (2006). Courtyard Housing : Past, Present and Future. In B.Edwards, M. Sibley, M. Hakmi& P. Land (Eds.)

[6] Rasdi, M. T. M., Ali, K. M., Ariffin, S. A. I. S., Musib, G., &Mohamad, R. a. (2005).The Architectural Heritage of the Malay World The Traditional Houses (1st ed.). Johor DarulTa'zim, Malaysia: UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia.

[7] Salem. M. Sharif, M.F.M. Zain, and M. Surat, Concurrence of Thermal Comfort of Courtyard Housing and Privacy in theTraditional Arab House in Middle East.Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2010.4(8): p. 9.

[8] Zahri, F.M., (2009) The Malay Woman and Terrace Housing in Malaysia, in School of Architecture. December 2009, Victoria University of Wellington: Wellington. p. 125

119