WHAT IS A HOUSE FOR住宅所为何
WHAT IS A HOUSE FOR住宅所为何House byTalk withInfo

Sergio Lopez-Pineiro: I first learned about this house around 15 years ago whilst pursuing a Masters at Princeton. Stan Allen, who wrote the influential article “Field Conditions,” was my thesis advisor, and his work greatly influenced me, as it did for many. I was particularly intrigued by the concept of a field —an environment that is more of a condition than a specific place—and how to structure it, through exploring the opportunities and openness it could provide.

While looking at various plans that aligned with this description, I came across the house designed by John Portman, a rare example of a domestic space by an architect renowned for large hotels and developments. It struck me that someone known for working on a grand scale had created a project applying the idea of fluid, continuous, structurally homogeneous, yet spatially diverse spaces at a domestic level.

I’ve always envisioned this house as a labyrinth within a kaleidoscope. It’s kaleidoscopic because it contains multiple nested scales of spaces and volumes. The building’s structure is a repetitive, intense spatial pattern of hollowed columns, offering a vast array of effects, opportunities, and interesting elements within it. It’s a fascinating reality.

WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF ITS NAME “ENTELECHY”? IF WE LOOK IT UP IN THE DICTIONARY, THE WORD MEANS “THE SUPPOSED VITAL PRINCIPLE THAT GUIDES THE DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF AN ORGANISM, SYSTEM OR ORGANIZATION.”

There’s something very biographical about the house. John Portman saw this house as a moment in which he physically realised something he had been contemplating for quite some time.

Four crucial aspects stand out. Firstly, it provides a continuous environment with a diverse range of spatial events, creating a fluid and varied experience that is far from monotonous and incredibly provocative.

Secondly, it’s inherently inward-looking, yet paradoxically lacks a facade. The photographs predominantly show a deep roof with columns emerging in its shadows, nestled amid trees and plants. This inward-looking condition is a consistent trait across all of Portman’s architecture, but in this particular house, it takes on a unique and intriguing quality.

The third aspect pertains to the type of domesticity it embodies—less centered around a static family model and more reflective of chance encounters as one moves through the space, meeting people or situations.

Finally, the fourth aspect highlights the didactic and simple structuring of the house, offering a remarkably fluid experience.

WHEN YOU EXAMINE THE PLAN, ITS CONCEPTION BECOMES EVIDENT.

Absolutely, there’s a considerable diversity arising from it, yet fundamentally, it’s rather straightforward. It comprises an array of four by six hollow structural columns, with each column divided into eight pieces. Four of these are fixed, while four are not. These columns serve multiple purposes including bringing light into the house and regulating mechanical ventilation. Descriptively simple, it unfolds into a spatially rich environment teeming with opportunities and events.

A notable point is that there are two versions of the house. The initial one was built by Portman for his family—two adults and six kids. Subsequently, there’s a second iteration, when the kids had left home. The latter version, more commonly depicted, is particularly intriguing in how the wall-to-wall carpet is represented in the drawings. It appears as if it’s a terrain, loose soil or sand, whilst in contrast, the interior spaces of the columns are intricately made with bricks.

Examining the images reveals an abundance of plants scattered throughout the house. Of all the post-World War II homes, it is perhaps the most densely planted. It rivals recent works by Ishigami.

REGARDING THE COMPARISON WITH ISHIGAMI. ENTELECHY IS DEEPLY INTERTWINED WITH NATURE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS, YET PORTMAN EMPLOYS A CLASSICAL VOCABULARY. WHILE THE STRUCTURE IS RIGID, STRICT, AND GEOMETRISED, ISHIGAMI SHARES A SIMILAR AMBITION, BUT OPTS FOR THE IMITATION OF NATURAL SHAPES, THERE IS NO FORMAL GEOMETRY. WOULD YOU CONSIDER PORTMAN TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE?

There’s undoubtedly a classical organisation at play. Classical, in the sense that the column serves as the primary element organising the space, and the spatial characteristics are meticulously and geometrically defined.

It’s a homogeneous field of 24 columns with an axis that cuts through it, which, again, is very classical. The axis provides the entrance to the house and an exit the swimming pool at the rear. It divides the house into a public and a private domains – very strictly. The public area is double height, while the private area is organised on two floors.

The house has three stairs: one is public, one is for the family and the last, exclusively for the main bedroom. You enter the house on the second level and walk down. On that second level, you have the majority of the secondary bedrooms, which is also the ‘kids’ level. Then you go down, and you have the public level on one side and then the kitchen, living, dining, and main bedroom. In many ways, it’s quite modernist in its separation of functions, reminiscent of Le Corbusier’s separation of kids on one floor and then public and parents on another.

However, I wouldn’t describe the house as conservative at all. My comparison with Ishigami aimed to highlight the striking aspect of having an abundance of plants inside a house, especially during the 1960s, a period marking the end of high modernism and the beginning of postmodernism.

Most of the images we have are from the public part of the house, which is a double-height space. When you look at it, it really doesn’t resemble a house at all; it’s more like a hotel lobby.

The house is contradictory and, accordingly, difficult to categorise.

YOU MENTIONED A COLUMN, BUT CONSIDERING THE VOID, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THESE COLUMNS HAD A DIFFERENT SHAPE? IS CIRCULAR GEOMETRY CRUCIAL FOR THE PROJECT?

I believe the circle contributes to the fluidity of the house. The absence of corners adds another dimension.

In the context of spatial experience within a phenomenological tradition, corners have always held significance. Here, we find ourselves in a house filled with unique experiences, yet devoid of corners. By questioning and removing them, one might be cautioned that it a cornerless house might lead to a fluid yet very homogeneous type of experience. Portman instead managed to create an environment of huge complexity.

Constructed in 1964, eight years after Crown Hall was completed in 1956, Entelechy presents a distinctive fluid spatiality, albeit radically different from the familiar Miesian language in numerous ways. It’s crucial to view this house not only as a standalone structure but also as a product of the period in which it was conceived and built—a time when ideas about the fluidity of space were emerging and finding expression.

CONCEPTUALLY, THIS HOUSE IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT YOU HAVE BIGGER SPACES THAT ARE ‘FLUID’ AND SMALLER SPACES, INSIDE THE COLUMNS, THAT ARE ‘STILL’ . WHY DO WE NEED THEM?

I find it to be a fascinating blend. Iñaki Ábalos has always emphasized the importance of incorporating a variety of small and large spaces when designing a house. It’s as simple as that. While you have the freedom to design in various ways, you need a mix of scales if you want to achieve an overall richness. Portman’s house serves as a didactic demonstration of this principle, contributing a level of richness that is challenging to envision without these secondary spaces.

The concept of Entelechy is interesting because it is somewhat counterintuitive. When thinking about repetitive or field conditions, the natural inclination is to eliminate any obstacles or smaller elements in the way. However, the introduction of smaller spaces, while still adhering to the overarching spatial repetition, provides a moment of rest—a fundamental pause amidst constant movement in field conditions.

Repetitive, total spaces often encounter challenges with entrances, singularities, mechanical services, stairs, and accessibility points. Resolving these issues within the repetition of columns, where these spaces can take care of all singularities, not only clarifies the design but also streamlines the construction process.

In the case of Entelechy I, smaller spaces play a crucial role in articulating and resolving singularities within the overall homogeneity. It’s a brilliant resolution to what might be considered a traditional problem.

PORTMAN POSITIONED THE STRUCTURAL WALLS OF THE CIRCLES ALONG TWO AXES, FREELY CLOSING OR LEAVING THEM OPEN IN SOME PLACES. AS A RESULT, SOME COLUMNS APPEAR MORE CIRCULAR IN PLAN THAN IN REALITY. DEPENDING ON THE PERSPECTIVE OR LOCATION, THEY MIGHT BE PERCEIVED AS JUST FOUR PILLARS, LOSING THEIR IDENTITY AS A COLUMN OR VOLUME. THIS SOMETIMES CREATES THE IMPRESSION OF THE DISSOLUTION OF RIGIDITY.

Yes, I completely agree. It becomes evanescent.

Sometimes you can read this space as a collection of columns, and sometimes it breaks down into smaller spaces within spaces. Examining the project’s genealogical evolution is interesting. Sendai Mediatheque by Toyo Ito, for example, resonates with Portman’s design. In Ito’s building, there is more freedom in the articulation of the structure. In some cases, you can move through these smaller spaces, while in others, the spaces are enclosed, serving specific functions like elevators or fire stairs.

Working with this topic in a house is very interesting.

WHAT DOES THE NOTION OF “A HOUSE INSIDE A HOUSE” BRING TO YOUR MIND? WHAT DO YOU THINK IS A MAIN QUALITY OF NESTING SPACES?

The interesting thing to me is that the nested spaces occur within a field and doesn’t define a center. They, at least theoretically or in principle, establish a homogeneous condition without reverting to a central organisation. From a domesticity perspective, it’s less about a stable and predictable center; it’s more about an environment where chance encounters can happen. That’s a very interesting, maybe peculiar choice. While one could consider the structure as classical, I believe conceptually it’s not conservative or traditional at all. The idea is to avoid having a central space.

THERE IS A CHARACTERISTIC TO THIS HOUSE THAT WE ALSO FIND IN OTHER EXEMPLARY HOUSES. IF YOU THINK ABOUT JOHN LAUTNER OR RICHARD NEUTRA, THEIR HOUSES ALWAYS PRESENT THEMSELVES AS DEVICES THAT ARE FIRST INSTALLATIONS, AND SECONDLY, AS IF BY ACCIDENT, DWELLINGS. THEY REPRESENT A VISION OF DOMESTICITY THAT IS NOT IMMEDIATELY FAMILIAR.

It’s akin to a public space. The essence is tied to the height, the light emanating from the roof rather than the window, and the use of rich materials.

If you remove the inhabitants and retain the structure, the entity could be interpreted and repurposed in a wide variety of ways.

IS IT A HOUSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN? ARE YOU SEEKING AN OPPORTUNITY TO INHABIT A SORT OF A FOUND OBJECT THAT IS NOT A HOUSE BY DEFINITION?

I would definitely love to live in a house like this.

I think that the overall experience of living in the house is probably both very liberating in the opportunities and independence that it offers you and at the same time, because of its inwardness, it manages to create a sense of place and location and a certain sense of stability.

I can imagine a luxurious domestic experience.

Rem Koolhaas wrote in his essay „Typical plan” in 1993: „The notion of the typical plan is therapeutic; it is the End of Architectural History, which is nothing but the hysterical fetishization of the atypical plan.” What I find interesting about this house is that, in a way, it can be thought of as a very typical plan. But within it, you find a lot of atypical moments.

DON’T YOU THINK THAT NOWADAYS THERE IS A SORT OF SKEPTICISM TOWARDS ARCHITECTURE BASED ON PRINCIPLES? RULE-BASED ARCHITECTURE IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE SOMEWHAT AFRAID OF. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT?

I think people are afraid of rigidity and monotony, but that is actually how architects have always designed. You have a building system that is used, and then you manipulate it. That’s the way things are naturally, vernacularly, or industrially built. Out of this manipulation, you achieve variety, diversity, etc.

In Entelechy I, there’s a structural language that could be, in part, parametrized, but I think that the actual design of it was done more in an analog way based on the inhabitants’ points of view, on their movements around the house, on how the light comes in, and on the specific orientation of each column.

THERE’S BEEN WORK DONE TO PARAMETRISE THE HOUSE. I HAVE READ ONE OR TWO ARTICLES OF PEOPLE TRYING TO LOOK FOR RULES. ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE COULD THE HOUSE GROW? DOES IT HAVE A MOSQUE LIKE QUALITY? AND IF SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

The house looks like it could grow in plan, but actually, the edges are perfectly defined. In principle, it could grow, but the way it was built prevents any kind of potential growth.

I don’t think that the search for a universal space is really worth investing time in. But I do think that the relation between the economy of means and the variety of possibilities Entelechy I offers is very interesting to explore.

ISN’T THE HOUSE DISCONCERTING?

Yes. The most common criticism of John Portman’s interior spaces is that they are disconcerting, people get lost in them.

I think if you look at this house, obviously it’s a very large mansion with a large number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Moreover, there’s no 1 to 1 relationship between the number of rooms and the number of spaces.

There is, for sure, a lack of predictability in this house and that for some people might be discomforting; you can be approached from any angle, and you wouldn’t even notice.

Anyway, thanks to this it is a very interesting inward-looking universe. I find it is a great idea for a house - an inward-looking universe - a contained infinity.

10.04.2023

塞尔吉奥·洛佩斯-皮内罗： 我第一次了解到这所住宅大约是在15年前，在普林斯顿攻读硕士学位期间。斯坦客艾伦是我毕业论文导师，他撰写了影响深远的文章《场地条件》，他的作品对我产生了极大的影响，就像对许多人一样。我对“场地”这一概念特别感兴趣——一种环境，更多地关乎于状态而不是具体的地点——以及如何通过探索它可能提供的机会和开放性来建构它。

在查看与此描述相符的各种平面图时，我偶然发现了由约翰客波特曼设计的住宅，作为一个以大型酒店和开发项目而闻名的建筑师，这是他罕见的居家空间设计。让我感到惊讶的是，一个以大尺度项目而闻名的人竟然在家庭尺度上应用了流动、连续、结构均匀但空间多样的想法。

我一直把这所住宅想象成一个万花筒中的迷宫。它是万花筒般的，因为它包含了多层次的空间和体积。建筑的结构是强烈而重复的中空柱塑造的空间图形，提供了琳琅满目的效果、机遇和趣味元素。这是一个令人着迷的事实。


“ENTELECHY（恩特莱希）”这个名字的你的解释是什么？如果我们查字典，这个词的意思是“假定的指导生物体、系统或组织发展和功能的重要原理”。


这所住宅有着很强的传记色彩。约翰客波特曼将其视为长时间思考后物理实现的时刻。

有四个关键方面很突出。首先，它提供了一个连续的环境，具有多样化的空间事件，创造了流动而丰富的体验，远离单调，令人难以忘怀。

其次，这座住宅天生是内向的，却又矛盾的缺乏立面。照片主要展示了一个深深的屋顶，柱子在屋顶的阴影中若隐若现，被树木和花草所环绕。这种内向的状态是波特曼所有建筑中一贯的特点，但在这个特定的房子中，它呈现出独特而引人入胜的品质。

第三个方面涉及它所体现的居家生活方式——不太以静态的家庭模式为中心，而更多地反映出在空间中移动时的偶遇，与人或情境相逢。

最后，第四个方面这所住宅强调了其结构的教育性和简洁性，提供了一种非常流畅的体验。


当你审视平面图时，它的概念其意自现。


确实，它蕴含着巨大的多样性，但从根本上说，却相当简单。这所住宅由一系列四乘六的中空结构柱组成，每个柱子分为八块。其中四块是固定的，而四块不是。这些柱子有多种用途，包括为住宅带来光线和调节机械通风。设计描述上很简单，却展现出一个空间丰富的环境，充满了机遇和事件。

值得注意的一点是，这所住宅有两个版本。最初的版本是波特曼为他的家人建造的——两个成年人和六个孩子。随后，有了第二个版本，当孩子们离家后。后一个版本，更常见的那个，尤其引人注目的是墙到墙的地毯在图纸中的呈现。它看起来像是地形，散漫的土壤或沙子，而与此相反，柱子的内部空间则是由砖精心制作而成。

审视这些图像，会发现住宅内遍布着大量的植物。在所有二战后的住宅中，它也许是种植最密集的，与石上建筑的最新作品相媲美。


说到与石上纯也的比较。恩特莱希宅与自然及其周围环境紧密相连，但波特曼运用了古典的词汇，结构是严谨、严格、几何化的。石上的建筑也有着相似的愿景，但选择模仿自然形状，没有正式的几何图形。你会认为波特曼更加保守么？


毫无疑问，这里运用了古典建筑的组织方式。古典，意味着柱子作为主要元素来组织空间，空间特征被细致地且几何化地定义着。

这是一个由24根柱子组成的同质场域，有一条穿过其中的轴线，这也非常古典。轴线提供了进入住宅和从后方游泳池出口的通道。它严格地将房子分为公共和私人领域。公共区域是双层高的，而私人区域则分布在两层楼上。

这所住宅有三个楼梯：一个是公共的，一个是家庭的，最后一个是专门为主卧设计的。你从二楼进入住宅，然后向下走。在二楼上，你会找到大部分次卧，也就是所谓的“儿童层”。然后你下楼，会看到公共层在一侧，然后另一侧是厨房、客厅、餐厅和主卧。从很多方面看，这种功能分隔都颇具现代主义风格，让人联想到勒客柯布西耶的做法，把孩子们放在一个楼层，而把公共区域和父母放在另一个楼层。

然而，我不会把这所住宅描述为保守。我与石上纯也建筑的比较旨在突出室内充满植物的引人注目之处，特别是在1960年代，这个时期标志着高度现代主义的结束和后现代主义的开始。

我们拥有的大部分图像都来自这所住宅的公共区域，那是一个双层高的空间。你看它真的一点也不像住宅；而更像是一个酒店大堂。

这座住宅矛盾而且难以分类。


你提到了柱子，但考虑到空隙，如果这些柱子的形状不同会发现什么？圆形的几何图形对项目至关重要吗？


我认为圆形有助于住宅的流动性。没有角落增加了另一种维度。

在现象学传统的空间体验中，角落一直具有重要意义。在这里，我们发现自己身处一个充满独特体验的住宅，但却没有角落。通过质疑和去除角落，人们可能会认识到，一个没有角落的住宅会导致一种流动但非常同质化的体验。而波特曼却成功地创造了一个极其复杂的环境。

恩特莱希宅建于1964年，比1956年竣工的克朗大厅晚了八年。它呈现出独特的空间流动性，虽然在许多方面与我们熟悉的密斯语言截然不同。重要的是，我们不仅要将这座住宅视为一座独立的建筑，还要将它视为其被构思与建造的那个时期的产物——那是一个关于空间流动性的理念正在崭露头角并找到表达方式的时代。


从概念上讲，这座住宅的设计原则是：大空间是 "流动的"，而柱内的小空间则是 "静止的"。为什么需要它们？


我认为这是一种迷人的融合。伊纳基·阿巴洛斯（Iñaki Ábalos）一直强调在设计住宅时，融合各种大小空间的重要性。就是这么简单。虽然你可以自由地进行各种方式的设计，但如果想要实现整体丰富性，你就需要各种尺度的搭配。波特曼的房子作为这一原则的教学演示，提供了一种丰富度，如果没有这些次要空间，很难想象这种丰富性能够实现。

恩特莱希宅的概念很有趣，因为它在某种程度上是违反直觉的。当考虑到重复或场地条件时，天然的倾向是消除任何障碍或更小的元素。然而，在坚持总体空间重复的同时，较小空间的引入提供了一个休息的时刻——在场地条件下不断变动的过程中提供了一个基本的停顿。

重复的整体空间通常会遇到诸如入口、特异性、机械设备、楼梯和无障碍设置等挑战。在重复的柱子中解决这些问题，使得这些空间可以照顾到所有特异性，不仅使得设计更清晰，还可以简化施工过程。

以恩特莱希一号而言，在整体同一性下，较小的空间为表达和解决特异性发挥了关键作用。这是解决所谓传统问题的绝妙方案。


波特曼将圆形的结构墙沿着两个轴线进行定位，可以任意地在某处关闭或打开。因此，有些柱子在平面上看起来比实际中更圆。根据观察的角度或位置，它们可能被视为仅仅是四根支柱，失去了作为一整个柱子或体量的特质。这有时会给人一种刻板消解的印象。

是的，我完全同意。它变得飘忽不定。

有时你可以把这个空间看作是一组柱子的集合，有时它又分解为空间中的小空间。审视项目的谱系演变是很有趣的。举个例子，伊东丰雄设计的仙台媒体中心就与波特曼的设计产生了共鸣。在伊东建筑中，结构的发声更加自由。在某些情况下，你可以穿过这些较小的空间，而在另一些情况下，空间是封闭的，用于特定的功能，如电梯或消防楼梯。

在住宅中处理这一主题非常有趣。



“住宅中的住宅”这个概念对你来说意味着什么？你认为巢穴空间的主要特点是什么？


对我来说，有趣的是，嵌套空间出现在一个场地内，并且不定义一个中心。它们，至少在理论上或原则上，建立了一种同质的状态，而不是回归到中心组织。

从居家性的角度来看，它不太关注一个稳定和可预测的中心；更多的是关于一个可以发生偶遇的环境。这是一个非常有趣的，也许是特殊的选择。虽然人们可能会将这种结构视为古典主义的，但我认为从概念上来说，它一点也不保守或传统。这个想法是避免有一个中心空间。


这所住宅具有一种特点，我们在其他杰出的住宅中也能找到。如果你考虑约翰客劳特纳或理查德客诺伊特拉，他们的住宅总是首先呈现为装置，其次，几乎像是偶然地成为了住所。它们代表了一种并不能即刻熟识的家居场景。


这类似于一个公共空间。其本质与高度、来自屋顶而不是窗户的光线，以及使用丰富的材料密切相关。

如果将居民移除并保留结构，这个实体能被解释和重新运用于各种不同的方式。



你愿意住在这样的住宅中吗？你想要居住在一种不符合住宅定义的现成事物中吗？


我绝对愿意住在这样的住宅里。

我认为在这样的住宅里生活的整体体验可能是非常自由的，因为它提供了各种机会和独立性，同时，由于它的内向性，它也能够营造出一种场所感和位置感，以及某种稳定感。

我可以想象这是一种奢华的家居体验。

雷姆客库哈斯在他1993年的文章《典型平面图》中写道：“典型平面图的概念是治疗性的；它是建筑历史的终结，建筑历史无非是对非典型平面图的癔症般的迷恋。”我觉得这所住宅有趣的地方在于，在某种程度上，它可以被视为一个非常典型的平面。但在其中，你会发现许多非典型的时刻。


你不觉得现在人们对基于原则的建筑有一种怀疑态度吗？基于规则的建筑是人们有些害怕的东西。这是为什么？


我认为人们害怕的是刻板和单调，但事实上，这正是建筑师一直以来的设计方式。你有一个通用的建筑系统，然后你去操纵它。这就是自然、乡土或工业建筑的方式。通过这种操作，你可以实现多样性和多元化等。

在恩特莱希一号中，结构语言可以在一定程度上进行参数化，但我认为它的实际设计更多地是以模拟的方式进行的，基于居民的观点，基于他们在房子周围的移动，基于光线的进入方式，以及每根柱子的特定方向。


有人对这所住宅进行了参数化的工作。我读过一两篇关于人们试图寻找规则的文章。他们提出了诸如这座住宅能否扩展？它是否具有清真寺般的特质？如果是这样，这意味着什么？


这座房子看起来像是可以在平面上扩展，但实际上，边缘是完全定义好的。原则上，它可能会扩展，但它的建造方式阻止了任何潜在的增长。

我不认为寻找一种普遍空间真的值得投入时间。但我确实认为，探索恩特莱希 I提供的意味的节俭与可能性的多样之间的关系非常有趣。



难道这所住宅令人不安吗？


是的。对约翰客波特曼室内空间最常见的批评是令人不安，让人迷失其中。

我认为如果你看看这所住宅，显然它是一座非常大的豪宅，卧室和浴室数量众多。而且，房间数量和空间数量之间没有一一对应的关系。

可以肯定的是，这所房子缺乏可预测性，这可能会让某些人感到不适；你可以从任何角度被接近，而自己甚至不会注意到。

不管怎样，得益于此，这是一个非常有趣的内向型宇宙。我觉得这是一个很好的住宅理念——一个内向型宇宙——一个被包容的无限。


2023年4月10日

Sergio Lopez-Pineiro: I first learned about this house around 15 years ago whilst pursuing a Masters at Princeton. Stan Allen, who wrote the influential article “Field Conditions,” was my thesis advisor, and his work greatly influenced me, as it did for many. I was particularly intrigued by the concept of a field —an environment that is more of a condition than a specific place—and how to structure it, through exploring the opportunities and openness it could provide.

While looking at various plans that aligned with this description, I came across the house designed by John Portman, a rare example of a domestic space by an architect renowned for large hotels and developments. It struck me that someone known for working on a grand scale had created a project applying the idea of fluid, continuous, structurally homogeneous, yet spatially diverse spaces at a domestic level.

I’ve always envisioned this house as a labyrinth within a kaleidoscope. It’s kaleidoscopic because it contains multiple nested scales of spaces and volumes. The building’s structure is a repetitive, intense spatial pattern of hollowed columns, offering a vast array of effects, opportunities, and interesting elements within it. It’s a fascinating reality.

WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF ITS NAME “ENTELECHY”? IF WE LOOK IT UP IN THE DICTIONARY, THE WORD MEANS “THE SUPPOSED VITAL PRINCIPLE THAT GUIDES THE DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF AN ORGANISM, SYSTEM OR ORGANIZATION.”

There’s something very biographical about the house. John Portman saw this house as a moment in which he physically realised something he had been contemplating for quite some time.

Four crucial aspects stand out. Firstly, it provides a continuous environment with a diverse range of spatial events, creating a fluid and varied experience that is far from monotonous and incredibly provocative.

Secondly, it’s inherently inward-looking, yet paradoxically lacks a facade. The photographs predominantly show a deep roof with columns emerging in its shadows, nestled amid trees and plants. This inward-looking condition is a consistent trait across all of Portman’s architecture, but in this particular house, it takes on a unique and intriguing quality.

The third aspect pertains to the type of domesticity it embodies—less centered around a static family model and more reflective of chance encounters as one moves through the space, meeting people or situations.

Finally, the fourth aspect highlights the didactic and simple structuring of the house, offering a remarkably fluid experience.

WHEN YOU EXAMINE THE PLAN, ITS CONCEPTION BECOMES EVIDENT.

Absolutely, there’s a considerable diversity arising from it, yet fundamentally, it’s rather straightforward. It comprises an array of four by six hollow structural columns, with each column divided into eight pieces. Four of these are fixed, while four are not. These columns serve multiple purposes including bringing light into the house and regulating mechanical ventilation. Descriptively simple, it unfolds into a spatially rich environment teeming with opportunities and events.

A notable point is that there are two versions of the house. The initial one was built by Portman for his family—two adults and six kids. Subsequently, there’s a second iteration, when the kids had left home. The latter version, more commonly depicted, is particularly intriguing in how the wall-to-wall carpet is represented in the drawings. It appears as if it’s a terrain, loose soil or sand, whilst in contrast, the interior spaces of the columns are intricately made with bricks.

Examining the images reveals an abundance of plants scattered throughout the house. Of all the post-World War II homes, it is perhaps the most densely planted. It rivals recent works by Ishigami.

REGARDING THE COMPARISON WITH ISHIGAMI. ENTELECHY IS DEEPLY INTERTWINED WITH NATURE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS, YET PORTMAN EMPLOYS A CLASSICAL VOCABULARY. WHILE THE STRUCTURE IS RIGID, STRICT, AND GEOMETRISED, ISHIGAMI SHARES A SIMILAR AMBITION, BUT OPTS FOR THE IMITATION OF NATURAL SHAPES, THERE IS NO FORMAL GEOMETRY. WOULD YOU CONSIDER PORTMAN TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE?

There’s undoubtedly a classical organisation at play. Classical, in the sense that the column serves as the primary element organising the space, and the spatial characteristics are meticulously and geometrically defined.

It’s a homogeneous field of 24 columns with an axis that cuts through it, which, again, is very classical. The axis provides the entrance to the house and an exit the swimming pool at the rear. It divides the house into a public and a private domains – very strictly. The public area is double height, while the private area is organised on two floors.

The house has three stairs: one is public, one is for the family and the last, exclusively for the main bedroom. You enter the house on the second level and walk down. On that second level, you have the majority of the secondary bedrooms, which is also the ‘kids’ level. Then you go down, and you have the public level on one side and then the kitchen, living, dining, and main bedroom. In many ways, it’s quite modernist in its separation of functions, reminiscent of Le Corbusier’s separation of kids on one floor and then public and parents on another.

However, I wouldn’t describe the house as conservative at all. My comparison with Ishigami aimed to highlight the striking aspect of having an abundance of plants inside a house, especially during the 1960s, a period marking the end of high modernism and the beginning of postmodernism.

Most of the images we have are from the public part of the house, which is a double-height space. When you look at it, it really doesn’t resemble a house at all; it’s more like a hotel lobby.

The house is contradictory and, accordingly, difficult to categorise.

YOU MENTIONED A COLUMN, BUT CONSIDERING THE VOID, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THESE COLUMNS HAD A DIFFERENT SHAPE? IS CIRCULAR GEOMETRY CRUCIAL FOR THE PROJECT?

I believe the circle contributes to the fluidity of the house. The absence of corners adds another dimension.

In the context of spatial experience within a phenomenological tradition, corners have always held significance. Here, we find ourselves in a house filled with unique experiences, yet devoid of corners. By questioning and removing them, one might be cautioned that it a cornerless house might lead to a fluid yet very homogeneous type of experience. Portman instead managed to create an environment of huge complexity.

Constructed in 1964, eight years after Crown Hall was completed in 1956, Entelechy presents a distinctive fluid spatiality, albeit radically different from the familiar Miesian language in numerous ways. It’s crucial to view this house not only as a standalone structure but also as a product of the period in which it was conceived and built—a time when ideas about the fluidity of space were emerging and finding expression.

CONCEPTUALLY, THIS HOUSE IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT YOU HAVE BIGGER SPACES THAT ARE ‘FLUID’ AND SMALLER SPACES, INSIDE THE COLUMNS, THAT ARE ‘STILL’ . WHY DO WE NEED THEM?

I find it to be a fascinating blend. Iñaki Ábalos has always emphasized the importance of incorporating a variety of small and large spaces when designing a house. It’s as simple as that. While you have the freedom to design in various ways, you need a mix of scales if you want to achieve an overall richness. Portman’s house serves as a didactic demonstration of this principle, contributing a level of richness that is challenging to envision without these secondary spaces.

The concept of Entelechy is interesting because it is somewhat counterintuitive. When thinking about repetitive or field conditions, the natural inclination is to eliminate any obstacles or smaller elements in the way. However, the introduction of smaller spaces, while still adhering to the overarching spatial repetition, provides a moment of rest—a fundamental pause amidst constant movement in field conditions.

Repetitive, total spaces often encounter challenges with entrances, singularities, mechanical services, stairs, and accessibility points. Resolving these issues within the repetition of columns, where these spaces can take care of all singularities, not only clarifies the design but also streamlines the construction process.

In the case of Entelechy I, smaller spaces play a crucial role in articulating and resolving singularities within the overall homogeneity. It’s a brilliant resolution to what might be considered a traditional problem.

PORTMAN POSITIONED THE STRUCTURAL WALLS OF THE CIRCLES ALONG TWO AXES, FREELY CLOSING OR LEAVING THEM OPEN IN SOME PLACES. AS A RESULT, SOME COLUMNS APPEAR MORE CIRCULAR IN PLAN THAN IN REALITY. DEPENDING ON THE PERSPECTIVE OR LOCATION, THEY MIGHT BE PERCEIVED AS JUST FOUR PILLARS, LOSING THEIR IDENTITY AS A COLUMN OR VOLUME. THIS SOMETIMES CREATES THE IMPRESSION OF THE DISSOLUTION OF RIGIDITY.

Yes, I completely agree. It becomes evanescent.

Sometimes you can read this space as a collection of columns, and sometimes it breaks down into smaller spaces within spaces. Examining the project’s genealogical evolution is interesting. Sendai Mediatheque by Toyo Ito, for example, resonates with Portman’s design. In Ito’s building, there is more freedom in the articulation of the structure. In some cases, you can move through these smaller spaces, while in others, the spaces are enclosed, serving specific functions like elevators or fire stairs.

Working with this topic in a house is very interesting.

WHAT DOES THE NOTION OF “A HOUSE INSIDE A HOUSE” BRING TO YOUR MIND? WHAT DO YOU THINK IS A MAIN QUALITY OF NESTING SPACES?

The interesting thing to me is that the nested spaces occur within a field and doesn’t define a center. They, at least theoretically or in principle, establish a homogeneous condition without reverting to a central organisation. From a domesticity perspective, it’s less about a stable and predictable center; it’s more about an environment where chance encounters can happen. That’s a very interesting, maybe peculiar choice. While one could consider the structure as classical, I believe conceptually it’s not conservative or traditional at all. The idea is to avoid having a central space.

THERE IS A CHARACTERISTIC TO THIS HOUSE THAT WE ALSO FIND IN OTHER EXEMPLARY HOUSES. IF YOU THINK ABOUT JOHN LAUTNER OR RICHARD NEUTRA, THEIR HOUSES ALWAYS PRESENT THEMSELVES AS DEVICES THAT ARE FIRST INSTALLATIONS, AND SECONDLY, AS IF BY ACCIDENT, DWELLINGS. THEY REPRESENT A VISION OF DOMESTICITY THAT IS NOT IMMEDIATELY FAMILIAR.

It’s akin to a public space. The essence is tied to the height, the light emanating from the roof rather than the window, and the use of rich materials.

If you remove the inhabitants and retain the structure, the entity could be interpreted and repurposed in a wide variety of ways.

IS IT A HOUSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN? ARE YOU SEEKING AN OPPORTUNITY TO INHABIT A SORT OF A FOUND OBJECT THAT IS NOT A HOUSE BY DEFINITION?

I would definitely love to live in a house like this.

I think that the overall experience of living in the house is probably both very liberating in the opportunities and independence that it offers you and at the same time, because of its inwardness, it manages to create a sense of place and location and a certain sense of stability.

I can imagine a luxurious domestic experience.

Rem Koolhaas wrote in his essay „Typical plan” in 1993: „The notion of the typical plan is therapeutic; it is the End of Architectural History, which is nothing but the hysterical fetishization of the atypical plan.” What I find interesting about this house is that, in a way, it can be thought of as a very typical plan. But within it, you find a lot of atypical moments.

DON’T YOU THINK THAT NOWADAYS THERE IS A SORT OF SKEPTICISM TOWARDS ARCHITECTURE BASED ON PRINCIPLES? RULE-BASED ARCHITECTURE IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE SOMEWHAT AFRAID OF. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT?

I think people are afraid of rigidity and monotony, but that is actually how architects have always designed. You have a building system that is used, and then you manipulate it. That’s the way things are naturally, vernacularly, or industrially built. Out of this manipulation, you achieve variety, diversity, etc.

In Entelechy I, there’s a structural language that could be, in part, parametrized, but I think that the actual design of it was done more in an analog way based on the inhabitants’ points of view, on their movements around the house, on how the light comes in, and on the specific orientation of each column.

THERE’S BEEN WORK DONE TO PARAMETRISE THE HOUSE. I HAVE READ ONE OR TWO ARTICLES OF PEOPLE TRYING TO LOOK FOR RULES. ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE COULD THE HOUSE GROW? DOES IT HAVE A MOSQUE LIKE QUALITY? AND IF SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

The house looks like it could grow in plan, but actually, the edges are perfectly defined. In principle, it could grow, but the way it was built prevents any kind of potential growth.

I don’t think that the search for a universal space is really worth investing time in. But I do think that the relation between the economy of means and the variety of possibilities Entelechy I offers is very interesting to explore.

ISN’T THE HOUSE DISCONCERTING?

Yes. The most common criticism of John Portman’s interior spaces is that they are disconcerting, people get lost in them.

I think if you look at this house, obviously it’s a very large mansion with a large number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Moreover, there’s no 1 to 1 relationship between the number of rooms and the number of spaces.

There is, for sure, a lack of predictability in this house and that for some people might be discomforting; you can be approached from any angle, and you wouldn’t even notice.

Anyway, thanks to this it is a very interesting inward-looking universe. I find it is a great idea for a house - an inward-looking universe - a contained infinity.

10.04.2023

塞尔吉奥·洛佩斯-皮内罗： 我第一次了解到这所住宅大约是在15年前，在普林斯顿攻读硕士学位期间。斯坦客艾伦是我毕业论文导师，他撰写了影响深远的文章《场地条件》，他的作品对我产生了极大的影响，就像对许多人一样。我对“场地”这一概念特别感兴趣——一种环境，更多地关乎于状态而不是具体的地点——以及如何通过探索它可能提供的机会和开放性来建构它。

在查看与此描述相符的各种平面图时，我偶然发现了由约翰客波特曼设计的住宅，作为一个以大型酒店和开发项目而闻名的建筑师，这是他罕见的居家空间设计。让我感到惊讶的是，一个以大尺度项目而闻名的人竟然在家庭尺度上应用了流动、连续、结构均匀但空间多样的想法。

我一直把这所住宅想象成一个万花筒中的迷宫。它是万花筒般的，因为它包含了多层次的空间和体积。建筑的结构是强烈而重复的中空柱塑造的空间图形，提供了琳琅满目的效果、机遇和趣味元素。这是一个令人着迷的事实。


“ENTELECHY（恩特莱希）”这个名字的你的解释是什么？如果我们查字典，这个词的意思是“假定的指导生物体、系统或组织发展和功能的重要原理”。


这所住宅有着很强的传记色彩。约翰客波特曼将其视为长时间思考后物理实现的时刻。

有四个关键方面很突出。首先，它提供了一个连续的环境，具有多样化的空间事件，创造了流动而丰富的体验，远离单调，令人难以忘怀。

其次，这座住宅天生是内向的，却又矛盾的缺乏立面。照片主要展示了一个深深的屋顶，柱子在屋顶的阴影中若隐若现，被树木和花草所环绕。这种内向的状态是波特曼所有建筑中一贯的特点，但在这个特定的房子中，它呈现出独特而引人入胜的品质。

第三个方面涉及它所体现的居家生活方式——不太以静态的家庭模式为中心，而更多地反映出在空间中移动时的偶遇，与人或情境相逢。

最后，第四个方面这所住宅强调了其结构的教育性和简洁性，提供了一种非常流畅的体验。


当你审视平面图时，它的概念其意自现。


确实，它蕴含着巨大的多样性，但从根本上说，却相当简单。这所住宅由一系列四乘六的中空结构柱组成，每个柱子分为八块。其中四块是固定的，而四块不是。这些柱子有多种用途，包括为住宅带来光线和调节机械通风。设计描述上很简单，却展现出一个空间丰富的环境，充满了机遇和事件。

值得注意的一点是，这所住宅有两个版本。最初的版本是波特曼为他的家人建造的——两个成年人和六个孩子。随后，有了第二个版本，当孩子们离家后。后一个版本，更常见的那个，尤其引人注目的是墙到墙的地毯在图纸中的呈现。它看起来像是地形，散漫的土壤或沙子，而与此相反，柱子的内部空间则是由砖精心制作而成。

审视这些图像，会发现住宅内遍布着大量的植物。在所有二战后的住宅中，它也许是种植最密集的，与石上建筑的最新作品相媲美。


说到与石上纯也的比较。恩特莱希宅与自然及其周围环境紧密相连，但波特曼运用了古典的词汇，结构是严谨、严格、几何化的。石上的建筑也有着相似的愿景，但选择模仿自然形状，没有正式的几何图形。你会认为波特曼更加保守么？


毫无疑问，这里运用了古典建筑的组织方式。古典，意味着柱子作为主要元素来组织空间，空间特征被细致地且几何化地定义着。

这是一个由24根柱子组成的同质场域，有一条穿过其中的轴线，这也非常古典。轴线提供了进入住宅和从后方游泳池出口的通道。它严格地将房子分为公共和私人领域。公共区域是双层高的，而私人区域则分布在两层楼上。

这所住宅有三个楼梯：一个是公共的，一个是家庭的，最后一个是专门为主卧设计的。你从二楼进入住宅，然后向下走。在二楼上，你会找到大部分次卧，也就是所谓的“儿童层”。然后你下楼，会看到公共层在一侧，然后另一侧是厨房、客厅、餐厅和主卧。从很多方面看，这种功能分隔都颇具现代主义风格，让人联想到勒客柯布西耶的做法，把孩子们放在一个楼层，而把公共区域和父母放在另一个楼层。

然而，我不会把这所住宅描述为保守。我与石上纯也建筑的比较旨在突出室内充满植物的引人注目之处，特别是在1960年代，这个时期标志着高度现代主义的结束和后现代主义的开始。

我们拥有的大部分图像都来自这所住宅的公共区域，那是一个双层高的空间。你看它真的一点也不像住宅；而更像是一个酒店大堂。

这座住宅矛盾而且难以分类。


你提到了柱子，但考虑到空隙，如果这些柱子的形状不同会发现什么？圆形的几何图形对项目至关重要吗？


我认为圆形有助于住宅的流动性。没有角落增加了另一种维度。

在现象学传统的空间体验中，角落一直具有重要意义。在这里，我们发现自己身处一个充满独特体验的住宅，但却没有角落。通过质疑和去除角落，人们可能会认识到，一个没有角落的住宅会导致一种流动但非常同质化的体验。而波特曼却成功地创造了一个极其复杂的环境。

恩特莱希宅建于1964年，比1956年竣工的克朗大厅晚了八年。它呈现出独特的空间流动性，虽然在许多方面与我们熟悉的密斯语言截然不同。重要的是，我们不仅要将这座住宅视为一座独立的建筑，还要将它视为其被构思与建造的那个时期的产物——那是一个关于空间流动性的理念正在崭露头角并找到表达方式的时代。


从概念上讲，这座住宅的设计原则是：大空间是 "流动的"，而柱内的小空间则是 "静止的"。为什么需要它们？


我认为这是一种迷人的融合。伊纳基·阿巴洛斯（Iñaki Ábalos）一直强调在设计住宅时，融合各种大小空间的重要性。就是这么简单。虽然你可以自由地进行各种方式的设计，但如果想要实现整体丰富性，你就需要各种尺度的搭配。波特曼的房子作为这一原则的教学演示，提供了一种丰富度，如果没有这些次要空间，很难想象这种丰富性能够实现。

恩特莱希宅的概念很有趣，因为它在某种程度上是违反直觉的。当考虑到重复或场地条件时，天然的倾向是消除任何障碍或更小的元素。然而，在坚持总体空间重复的同时，较小空间的引入提供了一个休息的时刻——在场地条件下不断变动的过程中提供了一个基本的停顿。

重复的整体空间通常会遇到诸如入口、特异性、机械设备、楼梯和无障碍设置等挑战。在重复的柱子中解决这些问题，使得这些空间可以照顾到所有特异性，不仅使得设计更清晰，还可以简化施工过程。

以恩特莱希一号而言，在整体同一性下，较小的空间为表达和解决特异性发挥了关键作用。这是解决所谓传统问题的绝妙方案。


波特曼将圆形的结构墙沿着两个轴线进行定位，可以任意地在某处关闭或打开。因此，有些柱子在平面上看起来比实际中更圆。根据观察的角度或位置，它们可能被视为仅仅是四根支柱，失去了作为一整个柱子或体量的特质。这有时会给人一种刻板消解的印象。

是的，我完全同意。它变得飘忽不定。

有时你可以把这个空间看作是一组柱子的集合，有时它又分解为空间中的小空间。审视项目的谱系演变是很有趣的。举个例子，伊东丰雄设计的仙台媒体中心就与波特曼的设计产生了共鸣。在伊东建筑中，结构的发声更加自由。在某些情况下，你可以穿过这些较小的空间，而在另一些情况下，空间是封闭的，用于特定的功能，如电梯或消防楼梯。

在住宅中处理这一主题非常有趣。



“住宅中的住宅”这个概念对你来说意味着什么？你认为巢穴空间的主要特点是什么？


对我来说，有趣的是，嵌套空间出现在一个场地内，并且不定义一个中心。它们，至少在理论上或原则上，建立了一种同质的状态，而不是回归到中心组织。

从居家性的角度来看，它不太关注一个稳定和可预测的中心；更多的是关于一个可以发生偶遇的环境。这是一个非常有趣的，也许是特殊的选择。虽然人们可能会将这种结构视为古典主义的，但我认为从概念上来说，它一点也不保守或传统。这个想法是避免有一个中心空间。


这所住宅具有一种特点，我们在其他杰出的住宅中也能找到。如果你考虑约翰客劳特纳或理查德客诺伊特拉，他们的住宅总是首先呈现为装置，其次，几乎像是偶然地成为了住所。它们代表了一种并不能即刻熟识的家居场景。


这类似于一个公共空间。其本质与高度、来自屋顶而不是窗户的光线，以及使用丰富的材料密切相关。

如果将居民移除并保留结构，这个实体能被解释和重新运用于各种不同的方式。



你愿意住在这样的住宅中吗？你想要居住在一种不符合住宅定义的现成事物中吗？


我绝对愿意住在这样的住宅里。

我认为在这样的住宅里生活的整体体验可能是非常自由的，因为它提供了各种机会和独立性，同时，由于它的内向性，它也能够营造出一种场所感和位置感，以及某种稳定感。

我可以想象这是一种奢华的家居体验。

雷姆客库哈斯在他1993年的文章《典型平面图》中写道：“典型平面图的概念是治疗性的；它是建筑历史的终结，建筑历史无非是对非典型平面图的癔症般的迷恋。”我觉得这所住宅有趣的地方在于，在某种程度上，它可以被视为一个非常典型的平面。但在其中，你会发现许多非典型的时刻。


你不觉得现在人们对基于原则的建筑有一种怀疑态度吗？基于规则的建筑是人们有些害怕的东西。这是为什么？


我认为人们害怕的是刻板和单调，但事实上，这正是建筑师一直以来的设计方式。你有一个通用的建筑系统，然后你去操纵它。这就是自然、乡土或工业建筑的方式。通过这种操作，你可以实现多样性和多元化等。

在恩特莱希一号中，结构语言可以在一定程度上进行参数化，但我认为它的实际设计更多地是以模拟的方式进行的，基于居民的观点，基于他们在房子周围的移动，基于光线的进入方式，以及每根柱子的特定方向。


有人对这所住宅进行了参数化的工作。我读过一两篇关于人们试图寻找规则的文章。他们提出了诸如这座住宅能否扩展？它是否具有清真寺般的特质？如果是这样，这意味着什么？


这座房子看起来像是可以在平面上扩展，但实际上，边缘是完全定义好的。原则上，它可能会扩展，但它的建造方式阻止了任何潜在的增长。

我不认为寻找一种普遍空间真的值得投入时间。但我确实认为，探索恩特莱希 I提供的意味的节俭与可能性的多样之间的关系非常有趣。



难道这所住宅令人不安吗？


是的。对约翰客波特曼室内空间最常见的批评是令人不安，让人迷失其中。

我认为如果你看看这所住宅，显然它是一座非常大的豪宅，卧室和浴室数量众多。而且，房间数量和空间数量之间没有一一对应的关系。

可以肯定的是，这所房子缺乏可预测性，这可能会让某些人感到不适；你可以从任何角度被接近，而自己甚至不会注意到。

不管怎样，得益于此，这是一个非常有趣的内向型宇宙。我觉得这是一个很好的住宅理念——一个内向型宇宙——一个被包容的无限。


2023年4月10日

Sergio Lopez-Pineiro: I first learned about this house around 15 years ago whilst pursuing a Masters at Princeton. Stan Allen, who wrote the influential article “Field Conditions,” was my thesis advisor, and his work greatly influenced me, as it did for many. I was particularly intrigued by the concept of a field —an environment that is more of a condition than a specific place—and how to structure it, through exploring the opportunities and openness it could provide.

While looking at various plans that aligned with this description, I came across the house designed by John Portman, a rare example of a domestic space by an architect renowned for large hotels and developments. It struck me that someone known for working on a grand scale had created a project applying the idea of fluid, continuous, structurally homogeneous, yet spatially diverse spaces at a domestic level.

I’ve always envisioned this house as a labyrinth within a kaleidoscope. It’s kaleidoscopic because it contains multiple nested scales of spaces and volumes. The building’s structure is a repetitive, intense spatial pattern of hollowed columns, offering a vast array of effects, opportunities, and interesting elements within it. It’s a fascinating reality.

WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF ITS NAME “ENTELECHY”? IF WE LOOK IT UP IN THE DICTIONARY, THE WORD MEANS “THE SUPPOSED VITAL PRINCIPLE THAT GUIDES THE DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF AN ORGANISM, SYSTEM OR ORGANIZATION.”

There’s something very biographical about the house. John Portman saw this house as a moment in which he physically realised something he had been contemplating for quite some time.

Four crucial aspects stand out. Firstly, it provides a continuous environment with a diverse range of spatial events, creating a fluid and varied experience that is far from monotonous and incredibly provocative.

Secondly, it’s inherently inward-looking, yet paradoxically lacks a facade. The photographs predominantly show a deep roof with columns emerging in its shadows, nestled amid trees and plants. This inward-looking condition is a consistent trait across all of Portman’s architecture, but in this particular house, it takes on a unique and intriguing quality.

The third aspect pertains to the type of domesticity it embodies—less centered around a static family model and more reflective of chance encounters as one moves through the space, meeting people or situations.

Finally, the fourth aspect highlights the didactic and simple structuring of the house, offering a remarkably fluid experience.

WHEN YOU EXAMINE THE PLAN, ITS CONCEPTION BECOMES EVIDENT.

Absolutely, there’s a considerable diversity arising from it, yet fundamentally, it’s rather straightforward. It comprises an array of four by six hollow structural columns, with each column divided into eight pieces. Four of these are fixed, while four are not. These columns serve multiple purposes including bringing light into the house and regulating mechanical ventilation. Descriptively simple, it unfolds into a spatially rich environment teeming with opportunities and events.

A notable point is that there are two versions of the house. The initial one was built by Portman for his family—two adults and six kids. Subsequently, there’s a second iteration, when the kids had left home. The latter version, more commonly depicted, is particularly intriguing in how the wall-to-wall carpet is represented in the drawings. It appears as if it’s a terrain, loose soil or sand, whilst in contrast, the interior spaces of the columns are intricately made with bricks.

Examining the images reveals an abundance of plants scattered throughout the house. Of all the post-World War II homes, it is perhaps the most densely planted. It rivals recent works by Ishigami.

REGARDING THE COMPARISON WITH ISHIGAMI. ENTELECHY IS DEEPLY INTERTWINED WITH NATURE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS, YET PORTMAN EMPLOYS A CLASSICAL VOCABULARY. WHILE THE STRUCTURE IS RIGID, STRICT, AND GEOMETRISED, ISHIGAMI SHARES A SIMILAR AMBITION, BUT OPTS FOR THE IMITATION OF NATURAL SHAPES, THERE IS NO FORMAL GEOMETRY. WOULD YOU CONSIDER PORTMAN TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE?

There’s undoubtedly a classical organisation at play. Classical, in the sense that the column serves as the primary element organising the space, and the spatial characteristics are meticulously and geometrically defined.

It’s a homogeneous field of 24 columns with an axis that cuts through it, which, again, is very classical. The axis provides the entrance to the house and an exit the swimming pool at the rear. It divides the house into a public and a private domains – very strictly. The public area is double height, while the private area is organised on two floors.

The house has three stairs: one is public, one is for the family and the last, exclusively for the main bedroom. You enter the house on the second level and walk down. On that second level, you have the majority of the secondary bedrooms, which is also the ‘kids’ level. Then you go down, and you have the public level on one side and then the kitchen, living, dining, and main bedroom. In many ways, it’s quite modernist in its separation of functions, reminiscent of Le Corbusier’s separation of kids on one floor and then public and parents on another.

However, I wouldn’t describe the house as conservative at all. My comparison with Ishigami aimed to highlight the striking aspect of having an abundance of plants inside a house, especially during the 1960s, a period marking the end of high modernism and the beginning of postmodernism.

Most of the images we have are from the public part of the house, which is a double-height space. When you look at it, it really doesn’t resemble a house at all; it’s more like a hotel lobby.

The house is contradictory and, accordingly, difficult to categorise.

YOU MENTIONED A COLUMN, BUT CONSIDERING THE VOID, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THESE COLUMNS HAD A DIFFERENT SHAPE? IS CIRCULAR GEOMETRY CRUCIAL FOR THE PROJECT?

I believe the circle contributes to the fluidity of the house. The absence of corners adds another dimension.

In the context of spatial experience within a phenomenological tradition, corners have always held significance. Here, we find ourselves in a house filled with unique experiences, yet devoid of corners. By questioning and removing them, one might be cautioned that it a cornerless house might lead to a fluid yet very homogeneous type of experience. Portman instead managed to create an environment of huge complexity.

Constructed in 1964, eight years after Crown Hall was completed in 1956, Entelechy presents a distinctive fluid spatiality, albeit radically different from the familiar Miesian language in numerous ways. It’s crucial to view this house not only as a standalone structure but also as a product of the period in which it was conceived and built—a time when ideas about the fluidity of space were emerging and finding expression.

CONCEPTUALLY, THIS HOUSE IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT YOU HAVE BIGGER SPACES THAT ARE ‘FLUID’ AND SMALLER SPACES, INSIDE THE COLUMNS, THAT ARE ‘STILL’ . WHY DO WE NEED THEM?

I find it to be a fascinating blend. Iñaki Ábalos has always emphasized the importance of incorporating a variety of small and large spaces when designing a house. It’s as simple as that. While you have the freedom to design in various ways, you need a mix of scales if you want to achieve an overall richness. Portman’s house serves as a didactic demonstration of this principle, contributing a level of richness that is challenging to envision without these secondary spaces.

The concept of Entelechy is interesting because it is somewhat counterintuitive. When thinking about repetitive or field conditions, the natural inclination is to eliminate any obstacles or smaller elements in the way. However, the introduction of smaller spaces, while still adhering to the overarching spatial repetition, provides a moment of rest—a fundamental pause amidst constant movement in field conditions.

Repetitive, total spaces often encounter challenges with entrances, singularities, mechanical services, stairs, and accessibility points. Resolving these issues within the repetition of columns, where these spaces can take care of all singularities, not only clarifies the design but also streamlines the construction process.

In the case of Entelechy I, smaller spaces play a crucial role in articulating and resolving singularities within the overall homogeneity. It’s a brilliant resolution to what might be considered a traditional problem.

PORTMAN POSITIONED THE STRUCTURAL WALLS OF THE CIRCLES ALONG TWO AXES, FREELY CLOSING OR LEAVING THEM OPEN IN SOME PLACES. AS A RESULT, SOME COLUMNS APPEAR MORE CIRCULAR IN PLAN THAN IN REALITY. DEPENDING ON THE PERSPECTIVE OR LOCATION, THEY MIGHT BE PERCEIVED AS JUST FOUR PILLARS, LOSING THEIR IDENTITY AS A COLUMN OR VOLUME. THIS SOMETIMES CREATES THE IMPRESSION OF THE DISSOLUTION OF RIGIDITY.

Yes, I completely agree. It becomes evanescent.

Sometimes you can read this space as a collection of columns, and sometimes it breaks down into smaller spaces within spaces. Examining the project’s genealogical evolution is interesting. Sendai Mediatheque by Toyo Ito, for example, resonates with Portman’s design. In Ito’s building, there is more freedom in the articulation of the structure. In some cases, you can move through these smaller spaces, while in others, the spaces are enclosed, serving specific functions like elevators or fire stairs.

Working with this topic in a house is very interesting.

WHAT DOES THE NOTION OF “A HOUSE INSIDE A HOUSE” BRING TO YOUR MIND? WHAT DO YOU THINK IS A MAIN QUALITY OF NESTING SPACES?

The interesting thing to me is that the nested spaces occur within a field and doesn’t define a center. They, at least theoretically or in principle, establish a homogeneous condition without reverting to a central organisation. From a domesticity perspective, it’s less about a stable and predictable center; it’s more about an environment where chance encounters can happen. That’s a very interesting, maybe peculiar choice. While one could consider the structure as classical, I believe conceptually it’s not conservative or traditional at all. The idea is to avoid having a central space.

THERE IS A CHARACTERISTIC TO THIS HOUSE THAT WE ALSO FIND IN OTHER EXEMPLARY HOUSES. IF YOU THINK ABOUT JOHN LAUTNER OR RICHARD NEUTRA, THEIR HOUSES ALWAYS PRESENT THEMSELVES AS DEVICES THAT ARE FIRST INSTALLATIONS, AND SECONDLY, AS IF BY ACCIDENT, DWELLINGS. THEY REPRESENT A VISION OF DOMESTICITY THAT IS NOT IMMEDIATELY FAMILIAR.

It’s akin to a public space. The essence is tied to the height, the light emanating from the roof rather than the window, and the use of rich materials.

If you remove the inhabitants and retain the structure, the entity could be interpreted and repurposed in a wide variety of ways.

IS IT A HOUSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN? ARE YOU SEEKING AN OPPORTUNITY TO INHABIT A SORT OF A FOUND OBJECT THAT IS NOT A HOUSE BY DEFINITION?

I would definitely love to live in a house like this.

I think that the overall experience of living in the house is probably both very liberating in the opportunities and independence that it offers you and at the same time, because of its inwardness, it manages to create a sense of place and location and a certain sense of stability.

I can imagine a luxurious domestic experience.

Rem Koolhaas wrote in his essay „Typical plan” in 1993: „The notion of the typical plan is therapeutic; it is the End of Architectural History, which is nothing but the hysterical fetishization of the atypical plan.” What I find interesting about this house is that, in a way, it can be thought of as a very typical plan. But within it, you find a lot of atypical moments.

DON’T YOU THINK THAT NOWADAYS THERE IS A SORT OF SKEPTICISM TOWARDS ARCHITECTURE BASED ON PRINCIPLES? RULE-BASED ARCHITECTURE IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE SOMEWHAT AFRAID OF. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT?

I think people are afraid of rigidity and monotony, but that is actually how architects have always designed. You have a building system that is used, and then you manipulate it. That’s the way things are naturally, vernacularly, or industrially built. Out of this manipulation, you achieve variety, diversity, etc.

In Entelechy I, there’s a structural language that could be, in part, parametrized, but I think that the actual design of it was done more in an analog way based on the inhabitants’ points of view, on their movements around the house, on how the light comes in, and on the specific orientation of each column.

THERE’S BEEN WORK DONE TO PARAMETRISE THE HOUSE. I HAVE READ ONE OR TWO ARTICLES OF PEOPLE TRYING TO LOOK FOR RULES. ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE COULD THE HOUSE GROW? DOES IT HAVE A MOSQUE LIKE QUALITY? AND IF SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

The house looks like it could grow in plan, but actually, the edges are perfectly defined. In principle, it could grow, but the way it was built prevents any kind of potential growth.

I don’t think that the search for a universal space is really worth investing time in. But I do think that the relation between the economy of means and the variety of possibilities Entelechy I offers is very interesting to explore.

ISN’T THE HOUSE DISCONCERTING?

Yes. The most common criticism of John Portman’s interior spaces is that they are disconcerting, people get lost in them.

I think if you look at this house, obviously it’s a very large mansion with a large number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Moreover, there’s no 1 to 1 relationship between the number of rooms and the number of spaces.

There is, for sure, a lack of predictability in this house and that for some people might be discomforting; you can be approached from any angle, and you wouldn’t even notice.

Anyway, thanks to this it is a very interesting inward-looking universe. I find it is a great idea for a house - an inward-looking universe - a contained infinity.

10.04.2023

塞尔吉奥·洛佩斯-皮内罗： 我第一次了解到这所住宅大约是在15年前，在普林斯顿攻读硕士学位期间。斯坦客艾伦是我毕业论文导师，他撰写了影响深远的文章《场地条件》，他的作品对我产生了极大的影响，就像对许多人一样。我对“场地”这一概念特别感兴趣——一种环境，更多地关乎于状态而不是具体的地点——以及如何通过探索它可能提供的机会和开放性来建构它。

在查看与此描述相符的各种平面图时，我偶然发现了由约翰客波特曼设计的住宅，作为一个以大型酒店和开发项目而闻名的建筑师，这是他罕见的居家空间设计。让我感到惊讶的是，一个以大尺度项目而闻名的人竟然在家庭尺度上应用了流动、连续、结构均匀但空间多样的想法。

我一直把这所住宅想象成一个万花筒中的迷宫。它是万花筒般的，因为它包含了多层次的空间和体积。建筑的结构是强烈而重复的中空柱塑造的空间图形，提供了琳琅满目的效果、机遇和趣味元素。这是一个令人着迷的事实。


“ENTELECHY（恩特莱希）”这个名字的你的解释是什么？如果我们查字典，这个词的意思是“假定的指导生物体、系统或组织发展和功能的重要原理”。


这所住宅有着很强的传记色彩。约翰客波特曼将其视为长时间思考后物理实现的时刻。

有四个关键方面很突出。首先，它提供了一个连续的环境，具有多样化的空间事件，创造了流动而丰富的体验，远离单调，令人难以忘怀。

其次，这座住宅天生是内向的，却又矛盾的缺乏立面。照片主要展示了一个深深的屋顶，柱子在屋顶的阴影中若隐若现，被树木和花草所环绕。这种内向的状态是波特曼所有建筑中一贯的特点，但在这个特定的房子中，它呈现出独特而引人入胜的品质。

第三个方面涉及它所体现的居家生活方式——不太以静态的家庭模式为中心，而更多地反映出在空间中移动时的偶遇，与人或情境相逢。

最后，第四个方面这所住宅强调了其结构的教育性和简洁性，提供了一种非常流畅的体验。


当你审视平面图时，它的概念其意自现。


确实，它蕴含着巨大的多样性，但从根本上说，却相当简单。这所住宅由一系列四乘六的中空结构柱组成，每个柱子分为八块。其中四块是固定的，而四块不是。这些柱子有多种用途，包括为住宅带来光线和调节机械通风。设计描述上很简单，却展现出一个空间丰富的环境，充满了机遇和事件。

值得注意的一点是，这所住宅有两个版本。最初的版本是波特曼为他的家人建造的——两个成年人和六个孩子。随后，有了第二个版本，当孩子们离家后。后一个版本，更常见的那个，尤其引人注目的是墙到墙的地毯在图纸中的呈现。它看起来像是地形，散漫的土壤或沙子，而与此相反，柱子的内部空间则是由砖精心制作而成。

审视这些图像，会发现住宅内遍布着大量的植物。在所有二战后的住宅中，它也许是种植最密集的，与石上建筑的最新作品相媲美。


说到与石上纯也的比较。恩特莱希宅与自然及其周围环境紧密相连，但波特曼运用了古典的词汇，结构是严谨、严格、几何化的。石上的建筑也有着相似的愿景，但选择模仿自然形状，没有正式的几何图形。你会认为波特曼更加保守么？


毫无疑问，这里运用了古典建筑的组织方式。古典，意味着柱子作为主要元素来组织空间，空间特征被细致地且几何化地定义着。

这是一个由24根柱子组成的同质场域，有一条穿过其中的轴线，这也非常古典。轴线提供了进入住宅和从后方游泳池出口的通道。它严格地将房子分为公共和私人领域。公共区域是双层高的，而私人区域则分布在两层楼上。

这所住宅有三个楼梯：一个是公共的，一个是家庭的，最后一个是专门为主卧设计的。你从二楼进入住宅，然后向下走。在二楼上，你会找到大部分次卧，也就是所谓的“儿童层”。然后你下楼，会看到公共层在一侧，然后另一侧是厨房、客厅、餐厅和主卧。从很多方面看，这种功能分隔都颇具现代主义风格，让人联想到勒客柯布西耶的做法，把孩子们放在一个楼层，而把公共区域和父母放在另一个楼层。

然而，我不会把这所住宅描述为保守。我与石上纯也建筑的比较旨在突出室内充满植物的引人注目之处，特别是在1960年代，这个时期标志着高度现代主义的结束和后现代主义的开始。

我们拥有的大部分图像都来自这所住宅的公共区域，那是一个双层高的空间。你看它真的一点也不像住宅；而更像是一个酒店大堂。

这座住宅矛盾而且难以分类。


你提到了柱子，但考虑到空隙，如果这些柱子的形状不同会发现什么？圆形的几何图形对项目至关重要吗？


我认为圆形有助于住宅的流动性。没有角落增加了另一种维度。

在现象学传统的空间体验中，角落一直具有重要意义。在这里，我们发现自己身处一个充满独特体验的住宅，但却没有角落。通过质疑和去除角落，人们可能会认识到，一个没有角落的住宅会导致一种流动但非常同质化的体验。而波特曼却成功地创造了一个极其复杂的环境。

恩特莱希宅建于1964年，比1956年竣工的克朗大厅晚了八年。它呈现出独特的空间流动性，虽然在许多方面与我们熟悉的密斯语言截然不同。重要的是，我们不仅要将这座住宅视为一座独立的建筑，还要将它视为其被构思与建造的那个时期的产物——那是一个关于空间流动性的理念正在崭露头角并找到表达方式的时代。


从概念上讲，这座住宅的设计原则是：大空间是 "流动的"，而柱内的小空间则是 "静止的"。为什么需要它们？


我认为这是一种迷人的融合。伊纳基·阿巴洛斯（Iñaki Ábalos）一直强调在设计住宅时，融合各种大小空间的重要性。就是这么简单。虽然你可以自由地进行各种方式的设计，但如果想要实现整体丰富性，你就需要各种尺度的搭配。波特曼的房子作为这一原则的教学演示，提供了一种丰富度，如果没有这些次要空间，很难想象这种丰富性能够实现。

恩特莱希宅的概念很有趣，因为它在某种程度上是违反直觉的。当考虑到重复或场地条件时，天然的倾向是消除任何障碍或更小的元素。然而，在坚持总体空间重复的同时，较小空间的引入提供了一个休息的时刻——在场地条件下不断变动的过程中提供了一个基本的停顿。

重复的整体空间通常会遇到诸如入口、特异性、机械设备、楼梯和无障碍设置等挑战。在重复的柱子中解决这些问题，使得这些空间可以照顾到所有特异性，不仅使得设计更清晰，还可以简化施工过程。

以恩特莱希一号而言，在整体同一性下，较小的空间为表达和解决特异性发挥了关键作用。这是解决所谓传统问题的绝妙方案。


波特曼将圆形的结构墙沿着两个轴线进行定位，可以任意地在某处关闭或打开。因此，有些柱子在平面上看起来比实际中更圆。根据观察的角度或位置，它们可能被视为仅仅是四根支柱，失去了作为一整个柱子或体量的特质。这有时会给人一种刻板消解的印象。

是的，我完全同意。它变得飘忽不定。

有时你可以把这个空间看作是一组柱子的集合，有时它又分解为空间中的小空间。审视项目的谱系演变是很有趣的。举个例子，伊东丰雄设计的仙台媒体中心就与波特曼的设计产生了共鸣。在伊东建筑中，结构的发声更加自由。在某些情况下，你可以穿过这些较小的空间，而在另一些情况下，空间是封闭的，用于特定的功能，如电梯或消防楼梯。

在住宅中处理这一主题非常有趣。



“住宅中的住宅”这个概念对你来说意味着什么？你认为巢穴空间的主要特点是什么？


对我来说，有趣的是，嵌套空间出现在一个场地内，并且不定义一个中心。它们，至少在理论上或原则上，建立了一种同质的状态，而不是回归到中心组织。

从居家性的角度来看，它不太关注一个稳定和可预测的中心；更多的是关于一个可以发生偶遇的环境。这是一个非常有趣的，也许是特殊的选择。虽然人们可能会将这种结构视为古典主义的，但我认为从概念上来说，它一点也不保守或传统。这个想法是避免有一个中心空间。


这所住宅具有一种特点，我们在其他杰出的住宅中也能找到。如果你考虑约翰客劳特纳或理查德客诺伊特拉，他们的住宅总是首先呈现为装置，其次，几乎像是偶然地成为了住所。它们代表了一种并不能即刻熟识的家居场景。


这类似于一个公共空间。其本质与高度、来自屋顶而不是窗户的光线，以及使用丰富的材料密切相关。

如果将居民移除并保留结构，这个实体能被解释和重新运用于各种不同的方式。



你愿意住在这样的住宅中吗？你想要居住在一种不符合住宅定义的现成事物中吗？


我绝对愿意住在这样的住宅里。

我认为在这样的住宅里生活的整体体验可能是非常自由的，因为它提供了各种机会和独立性，同时，由于它的内向性，它也能够营造出一种场所感和位置感，以及某种稳定感。

我可以想象这是一种奢华的家居体验。

雷姆客库哈斯在他1993年的文章《典型平面图》中写道：“典型平面图的概念是治疗性的；它是建筑历史的终结，建筑历史无非是对非典型平面图的癔症般的迷恋。”我觉得这所住宅有趣的地方在于，在某种程度上，它可以被视为一个非常典型的平面。但在其中，你会发现许多非典型的时刻。


你不觉得现在人们对基于原则的建筑有一种怀疑态度吗？基于规则的建筑是人们有些害怕的东西。这是为什么？


我认为人们害怕的是刻板和单调，但事实上，这正是建筑师一直以来的设计方式。你有一个通用的建筑系统，然后你去操纵它。这就是自然、乡土或工业建筑的方式。通过这种操作，你可以实现多样性和多元化等。

在恩特莱希一号中，结构语言可以在一定程度上进行参数化，但我认为它的实际设计更多地是以模拟的方式进行的，基于居民的观点，基于他们在房子周围的移动，基于光线的进入方式，以及每根柱子的特定方向。


有人对这所住宅进行了参数化的工作。我读过一两篇关于人们试图寻找规则的文章。他们提出了诸如这座住宅能否扩展？它是否具有清真寺般的特质？如果是这样，这意味着什么？


这座房子看起来像是可以在平面上扩展，但实际上，边缘是完全定义好的。原则上，它可能会扩展，但它的建造方式阻止了任何潜在的增长。

我不认为寻找一种普遍空间真的值得投入时间。但我确实认为，探索恩特莱希 I提供的意味的节俭与可能性的多样之间的关系非常有趣。



难道这所住宅令人不安吗？


是的。对约翰客波特曼室内空间最常见的批评是令人不安，让人迷失其中。

我认为如果你看看这所住宅，显然它是一座非常大的豪宅，卧室和浴室数量众多。而且，房间数量和空间数量之间没有一一对应的关系。

可以肯定的是，这所房子缺乏可预测性，这可能会让某些人感到不适；你可以从任何角度被接近，而自己甚至不会注意到。

不管怎样，得益于此，这是一个非常有趣的内向型宇宙。我觉得这是一个很好的住宅理念——一个内向型宇宙——一个被包容的无限。


2023年4月10日

Sergio Lopez-Pineiro

is an interdisciplinary architect who explores voids as socio-spatial phenomena of freedom, diversity, and spontaneity. He is the director of the design studio Holes of Matter and an assistant professor in architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Lopez-Pineiro is the author of A Glossary of Urban Voids and Typologies for Big Words.

www.holesofmatter.com

Sergio Lopez-Pineiro

is an interdisciplinary architect who explores voids as socio-spatial phenomena of freedom, diversity, and spontaneity. He is the director of the design studio Holes of Matter and an assistant professor in architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Lopez-Pineiro is the author of A Glossary of Urban Voids and Typologies for Big Words.

www.holesofmatter.com

Sergio Lopez-Pineiro

is an interdisciplinary architect who explores voids as socio-spatial phenomena of freedom, diversity, and spontaneity. He is the director of the design studio Holes of Matter and an assistant professor in architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Lopez-Pineiro is the author of A Glossary of Urban Voids and Typologies for Big Words.

www.holesofmatter.com