ABSTRACT
Without disregarding completely such projective behaviour, Baudrillard reminds us that the phenomenology of space is of far less relevance in our contemporary culture, and therefore of less significance when applied to architectural design. This is important because it is a clear reminder of Bachelard’s and other phenomenologists’ notion of our ‘original’ space, and their excessively sentimental, architecturally often reduced approach to design. On the other hand, one should not disregard the value of an evident unconscious life that we unfold in the spaces we live in, which is parallel and obviously intertwined with our active life and is influenced by our earlier life. Juhani Pallasmaa reminds us that ‘[Edward T.] Hall’s proxemic studies of personal space offer important insights into instinctual and unconscious aspects of man’s relation to space as the basis for the design of intimate, bio-culturally functional space.’111 Perhaps more than just endorsing the true importance of intimacy in our daily life, it is crucial to redefine contemporary notions of intimacy in which the reciprocity between our sense of being-in-theworld and our changing physical surrounding
can be stimulated by a new sense of depth and embodiment of architecture.112 And it is here that the concept of inhabitable interfaces becomes relevant, as it forms part of a broader meaning of architectural flesh that enhances the awareness of our existential immediacy in Raum. Such spaces are not just spaces of refuge and escape, but also of creativity and joy; most of all, they are haptic spaces that prompt a great sensory richness.
