Cities and Buildings Designed for People
Your research examines, among other things, how environments can influence human behaviour. Where has architecture stagnated the most? Where does it fail to meet the needs of modern people?
For me, the most critical issue in architecture is accessibility—not only spatial accessibility, but also visual and functional accessibility. At a time when we are overwhelmed by readily available information, visual clutter seems like an unnecessary nuisance. House numbers work very well: they usually have a consistent identity and help people find their way. In the age of digitalisation, signs advertising individual services could work in a similar way, without excessive pressure to be provocative or overly individualistic.
Functional accessibility is also connected to the daily cycles of buildings. It is a shame how many offices stand empty after five in the afternoon. With flexible workstations that are not permanently assigned to a particular person, offices could serve other purposes in the evenings—for example, as a graphic design workshop for teenagers or a community space for local residents.
Why do you think efforts to reduce visual clutter have been unsuccessful? After all, it has been discussed for quite a long time.
The main problem lies in the mindset of both the people offering services and those consuming them. There is still a persistent belief that the more visible I am, the more money I will make. But in my opinion, that is no longer true. Everything has become digital, and even having a high number of followers does not guarantee success. The dynamics of commercial relationships have changed. Until society understands this, change will not happen. We are using methods that are thirty years old, even though today’s world operates in a completely different way. I believe CTU should also become involved in this public debate.
What space or city inspires you?
I am greatly inspired by public spaces in Scandinavia, especially Copenhagen. I am fascinated by the importance of correctly defining the boundary between public and private space. When we choose the right solution, the two worlds connect, a social order emerges, and people feel safe.
The worst approach is to establish a sharp boundary. This can create brownfields, unpleasant areas, or even no-go zones. Such boundaries need to be softened; it is not possible simply to build a wall and close a space off.
I also like traditional cities that have grown gradually. I often work in Telč, whose major problem is seasonality. It comes alive for about two weeks a year and is almost dead for the rest of the time. Nevertheless, its urban design and social order work in a way that prevents the creation of corners where people would feel afraid. The city has a pleasant scale. I enjoy Renaissance, Baroque, and historic cities precisely because they developed naturally. Even large squares can work in a timeless way when they are given the right content and programme.
Which place in Prague do you consider underestimated?
The space beneath the main arterial road, particularly the area stretching from the Main Railway Station towards Těšnov. Today, there is a car park there, even though the ground-level space beneath the road could be treated in a completely different way.
It would not have to contain only administrative buildings. Through tactical urbanism, the area could be given a different function. We could imagine tiny houses, food trucks, or a stage, as louder events would not disturb the surrounding area as much. Today, the arterial road acts as a major barrier. I did not always perceive it in this way, but the approach according to which cities were built for cars is outdated. We make cities for people, not for cars.
What does sustainability in architecture mean to you?
Spaces should be universal and should allow their inhabitants to develop. This would also help address the issue of the functional obsolescence of buildings. If spaces were more universal and their use could remain fluid, buildings could function for at least two hundred years without major modifications, requiring only subtle interior renovations.
For me, sustainability is about longevity. When we create things that function for a long time and remain continuously in use, that is the most sustainable approach we can take in architecture.
Concrete is not the enemy for me. I consider reinforced concrete to be a revolutionary invention, but it must be used responsibly. I am still learning about the material myself, but I am already fascinated by how durable it is. When more time is devoted to a design and it is considered more thoroughly, it is possible to create truly sustainable buildings and infrastructure with an entirely different value. In this respect, I see the Štvanice Footbridge as an example of good architecture.
From Starchitects to a Common Language
How do you think the role of the architect has changed?
Architecture today is no longer about an architect acting as a dominant figure who dictates what everything should look like. In my opinion, the era of so-called “starchitects” is becoming socially unacceptable. Contemporary architecture relies on co-design, which requires tolerance, an understanding of the other side, and the search for a common language.
At CASUA, the studio where I work, individual projects are handled by different teams. They discuss their ideas with one another and look for the best solution for each particular project. I do not think there are many studios like this in the Czech Republic. Too often, everything revolves around a single personality. I would like the best idea to win, rather than decisions being based on a label or social status.
Which disciplines in particular should seek a common language?
First and foremost, behavioural sciences and architecture, because architecture concerns people. It is no longer enough to ask where we feel comfortable. The important question is: why?
The involvement of structural engineers or ventilation specialists is already a standard part of the design process. Psychology, demography, and behavioural sciences should also become more integrated into architecture. These disciplines can describe community life, and the fact is that communities are what develop neighbourhoods, which then become connected with one another.
Material innovation is also important. In the Czech Republic, however, architecture is heavily driven by economics. Costs are cut in pursuit of higher profits, and many investors are not always open to innovation.
How, then, can we ensure that interdisciplinarity does not remain merely the isolated effort of individual teams?
It is the same as with people. Unless we are tolerant towards one another and respect each other’s imagination, an interdisciplinary project will never achieve the goal we expect from it.
Any disciplines can come together and search for answers to shared scientific questions, but everything depends on how people exchange opinions, inspire one another, and find a way to work together. I believe scientists are well suited to interdisciplinarity because experimentation is part of their method. Looking for questions at the boundaries between disciplines is itself a kind of experiment.
Collaboration can work when people are open, do not have a rigid and perfectionist idea of what a project should look like or how it should turn out, and are not afraid of mistakes, failure, or the possibility that the original intention may not be fulfilled. It is always a risk, just like any form of science.
Individual disciplines often have different ideas about what constitutes a good result. What is the main output in your field?
I work through research by design (editor’s note: a research method in which the design process itself is the primary tool for generating new knowledge). I tend to avoid writing articles, although I have written some. At conferences, I prefer presenting a poster, and when I am expected to give a presentation with slides, I would rather prepare a fifteen-minute video and play it.
For some disciplines, an article or conference paper is a natural way of communicating information. Architecture, however, is primarily about the experience of an object and of living in it. My goal is to build something and find out that it works—that people enjoy it, that it interests them, that they like returning to it, that they feel inspired, and that it gives them a sense of safety. There is no way to verify this other than through realisation.
In my opinion, the form of the output is not essential. It may be an article, a conference presentation, or a prototype. A project should include different forms of output. The more difficult task is finding a way to discuss the subject together.
What do you think is missing from the education of architects and engineers?
Alongside the study of buildings, there should also be a study of people. Education should place greater emphasis on the psychology of individuals and society as a whole, on interpersonal interactions, and on simple principles that should form part of basic education.
Behavioural sciences receive very little space in architecture, even though people commonly seek advice from relationship counsellors, psychologists, or psychiatrists. Some of these principles can of course be integrated directly into teaching. At the same time, it would be wonderful if CTU had a platform for behavioural sciences.
Which other disciplines would you like to collaborate with?
My dream is to collaborate with biomedicine. I can imagine jointly developing, for example, a prototype hospital room. That could be very interesting.
I can also imagine collaborating with the Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, but it always depends on how the research is approached and what the fundamental scientific question is. At the moment, biomedicine is easier for me to conceptualise.
The Next Generation of Tiny Houses
You received a Fulbright-Masaryk Scholarship to research tiny houses. At the same time, you are highly critical of small apartments. What, in your view, is the difference between the two?
In my opinion, a tiny house is not intended for permanent living. It is more of a temporary or weekend space in which the exterior plays the main role. A person can step outside, while the interior is primarily somewhere to sleep because they are enjoying nature, trees, or birdsong. It is a form of glamping.
I cannot imagine someone spending an entire weekend in a micro-apartment on the sixth floor. I have been living in a small apartment in Žižkov for three years, and I have found that people – especially when they are creating something – need space around them and need to be able to breathe. I therefore do not believe that lifelong residence in a small apartment has a positive effect on people.
I can imagine temporary accommodation or renting such a space. The situation can also be transformed by, for example, a terrace connected to the interior. It effectively becomes a second room. But a closed box in which someone lives permanently does not suit me.
In your planned research, you will build on the IA STIJL project. What did that project involve?
IA STIJL was a test apartment controlled according to the principles of a computer game. It functioned like a kind of joystick. A phone detected that the user was inside, and when they turned on a light, ran the water, or switched on a computer, an application began measuring their behaviour and awarding points.
The fewer points the user collected, the more sustainable their behaviour was. If they consumed more energy, spent unnecessarily long periods at the computer, or watched television, the number of points increased. With a low score, the user entered a bonus round and could earn crypto-assets, which, according to the vision at the time, would entitle them to benefits such as local discounts.
The goal was to motivate people to adopt a particular direction, behave intentionally, respect their bodies, and avoid overexerting themselves.
How can we measure whether an environment supports mental well-being and healthier habits?
It is a question of lifestyle. When habits, routines, and mental state are quantified, it is possible to determine whether a person is thriving or not. IA STIJL was designed so that the first fourteen days served as a trial period. During that time, the individual threshold values of a particular user were identified, after which the application showed whether the user was improving or deteriorating. Every person is different and does not have the same threshold values.
We should test the tiny house in a similar way. I would like to conduct several rounds of testing in which people would stay in it, for example, three times in succession for two days at a time. We would then carry out both qualitative and quantitative research and analyse what happened during the stay and how the participants felt. The research will certainly also include in-depth interviews.
We also want to set threshold values based on findings from behavioural sciences and try to motivate users to follow generally accepted healthy habits. We will examine whether they are motivated to do so and whether they genuinely feel better as a result.
How, then, will the next-generation tiny house differ from the IA STIJL test apartment?
It is not yet possible to say because I do not know how the project will develop. Put simply, I would like to focus more on the user experience and create a completely seamless solution without noticeable transitions, ideally using entirely ordinary devices. I do not want to make it unnecessarily complicated.
One of the most difficult tasks will be to simplify everything while preserving its effectiveness. The second challenge will be obtaining a building permit. I have a certain vision, but I am not trying to create a fixed idea of the final result in advance. From other projects, I know that it is impossible to predict everything.
Why did you choose MIT for your Fulbright stay?
MIT has an excellent Department of Architecture, and architecture there is genuinely multidisciplinary. It also has highly developed expertise in 3D printing, parametric design, and behavioural sciences, so everything I need for my project is available there.
At MIT, we will think about how to construct the object and exchange know-how. I will collaborate with Professor Rafi Segal, whom I have known for a long time. We first met in the Czech Republic approximately fifteen years ago, and I am pleased that we will now have a joint project. I hope that four months will be enough.
What can Czech technical universities learn from MIT?
MIT has a completely different educational model. It connects contrasting disciplines—for example, architecture and chemistry—and the boundary between them itself becomes an object of research. By combining perspectives from different disciplines, people there are able to develop their own innovative methods and achieve results that may be revolutionary.
In the Czech Republic, only a small proportion of architects also study, for example, a construction-related discipline in order to gain a technical perspective. At MIT, it is common to study engineering and biology at the same time. It is precisely these different approaches that allow people there to view problems differently.
How can we enable people from different disciplines at CTU to meet more frequently in a professional context?
I have already touched on this. Similar to MIT, students of biomedicine, for example, could be required to enrol in a course at the Faculty of Architecture or the Faculty of Transportation Sciences. In this way, the disciplines would become mixed.
Teaching, however, must respect the individual development of every student. As an educator, I am very tolerant towards students, even though I have high expectations of them. I adapt the lesson and the time devoted to it according to how well they understand the subject, and I assess them based on the result. An approach focused solely on delivering content is, in my opinion, not sufficiently centred on individual personalities. At MIT, I would therefore also like to improve my teaching practice.
Ing. arch. Kateřina Goryczka, Ph.D., graduated from the Faculty of Architecture at CTU, where she also earned her doctoral degree. In her dissertation, she developed the IA STIJL project, which explored the benefits of an interactive responsive system in domestic interiors. She is currently pursuing a second doctorate at the Klokner Institute at CTU, focusing on digitalisation and 3D concrete printing. She also teaches at UMPRUM and works at the architecture and design practice CASUA. Her work connects architectural design with digital technologies and investigates how environments influence human behaviour.
Fotografie: Jiří Ryszawy