Stasa Zekovic

Adaptability and flexibility are popular and wide spread terms when discussing architecture, as well as desirable characteristics of a space. When it comes to housing, Modern Movement has particularly theorized, practiced and underlined the essential need of a space to be adaptable and flexible. However, how can we test if a space indeed possesses these qualities internally, and avoid the mistake of assigning these traits without any experimental confirmation? This paper revolves around a case study of a housing building in Novi Sad (Serbia) where seven apartments placed in the same vertical have been explored. The aim is to test whether the primary spatial layout (IMS system grid) had the possibility to evolve over time, having in mind the hypothesis that different dwellings include different users/family structures that have developed diverse habits, lifestyles and needs. The research method was both analysis and synthesis (firstly, analysis of selected units as examples, and then synthesis in form of intercomparison and conclusions). The case study method has been conducted through interviews with the tenants, current state documentation, and ultimately, graphically represented through diagrams. The analysis focused not only on the adaptability and flexibility of the room/function layout, but on the program openness/closedness, change in square footage and corridors (stiffness/fluidity of connecting spaces and door disposition changes). The results conclude that the original structure is adaptable and flexible, since all seven apartments tested differ from each other considerably. This means that through the exploitation, the users have used the flexibility and adaptability assets of the space to further develop the existing housing framework, and that, consequentially, apartment structures correspond to the family structure.

When visiting cultural heritage sites and museums, we rely on our senses in perceiving the world around us, especially architectural and artistic sensations. Even though empirical foundation can often be deceitful, it represents the stimulus we form a response to and what ultimately becomes our memory of the space. With our whole world being constantly digitalised, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, our personal and work relationships mostly became linked to technology. The aim of this paper is to question new technologies' use (Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Natural Interaction, Metaverse), values and dangers recently underlined in the public discourse, as well as whether heritage sites and their users thrive in virtual surroundings at all. Using the Stimulus-Organism-Response model, this paper investigates whether the past still has a future in the traditional, formal sense. The main question is: What is the cultural significance of heritage in a virtual world and is digital heritage possible, or is this an oxymoron? The conclusion suggests that new technologies' use should be carefully and moderately carried out and limited to several situations.