Kurpie house. The evolution of form towards the present. Architectural design in the region.

Kurpie Zielone and Kurpie Białe constitute a distinctive cultural region located in northern Mazovia, Poland. This area, commonly referred to as Kurpie, has developed a strong local identity rooted in tradition, craftsmanship, and a specific way of organizing rural life. The local culture forms the foundation upon which a unique model of spatial organization and a method and aesthetic of constructing dwellings emerged—structures known today as Kurpian homesteads and cottages.

These patterns are preserved in open-air museums and in a limited number of surviving original buildings; however, their integrity and continued existence are threatened by the absence of contemporary architectural realizations that would sustain and creatively reinterpret them. The aim of the master’s thesis was to develop an evolutionary method enabling the identification of archetypal patterns of Kurpian cottages—particularly those from the area of the Puszcza Zielona—and to reinterpret them within the context of contemporary residential needs. On this basis, an architectural design was developed. The methodological framework is described below.

Step 1: Analysis of Historical Forms

The first step involves examining whether and how the architectural form changed over time. If the transformations were significant, they should be recorded along a timeline and each phase analyzed separately. If the form evolved while retaining its principal characteristics, all its variants may be subjected to a joint analysis.

Individual rooms (or objects, their components, etc.) are assigned with specific functions—for example: cooking and eating, heating, sleeping, receiving guests, and so forth.

Meanings are also subject to analysis. Under each identified space, all the meanings it conveys should be listed. For instance: integration, representation, securing livelihood, a sense of safety, the embodiment of a specific tradition, the practice of a given ritual, and similar aspects.

The analysis may be expanded to include any number of additional dimensions: form, material, construction method, and so on. In the following study, these classifications are referred to as MATRICES.

An additional aspect at this stage, deepening the understanding of the subject, is the investigation of the reasons why particular forms, functions, and meanings developed in a specific manner. These may include customs, traditions, beliefs, the social structure of a given ethnic group, the availability of certain materials, past legal regulations, historical events, and related factors.

Step 2: Creation of an Analogous Matrix for Contemporary Spaces

The next step consists of creating an analogous matrix of functions and meanings for contemporary spaces. The contemporary matrix should be developed on the basis of the designer’s knowledge and awareness and/or according to the investor’s requirements.

Step 3: Juxtaposition and Correlation of the Two Matrices

The historical and contemporary matrices are then compared, and corresponding functions and meanings are linked. Not all functions and meanings from the historical and contemporary matrices must have direct equivalents. If certain listed elements remain unconnected, one should consider whether a given function and/or meaning has disappeared, or whether it is strictly tied to present times and did not exist in the past. Elements lacking counterparts should be described in this or a similar manner.

Step 4: Conclusions from the Comparative Analysis

At this stage, it is necessary to identify which material, functional, and semantic aspects are crucial—those that constitute patterns (archetypes) without which the remaining elements lose coherence or meaning. These should be listed and described. They may include entire rooms, fragments of rooms, forms, or individual objects.

All functions and meanings associated with each specific archetype should be selected and traced to determine where their counterparts appear within the contemporary matrix. In other words, one must observe how functions and meanings have migrated over the analyzed period.

If the functions and meanings of an archetype are found entirely or predominantly within a single element of the contemporary matrix, it becomes evident that this element will form the new evolutionary expression of the traditional archetype. If the functions and meanings of the historical archetype are evenly dispersed among various elements of the contemporary matrix, the designer must make a subjective decision as to which contemporary category—containing the functions and meanings of the traditional archetype—best corresponds to the design problem at hand.

If the functions and meanings of an archetype have not found counterparts in contemporary elements, or if only minimal analogies can be observed, a second iteration of listing the functions and meanings of that archetype should be undertaken, this time focusing exclusively on the archetype that has not found a present-day equivalent.

After selecting the contemporary element that will continue the archetype, it should be verified against patterns currently present in architectural practice.

Step 5: Concept Development

Based on the selected archetypes, the architectural form is designed. During this process, it is advisable to refer continually to the matrix of functions and meanings in order to trace relationships between elements. A cause–function–meaning matrix may serve to verify individual aspects.

The author suggests that if a given cause remains valid in contemporary conditions, the function—and, if possible, its form—it should be preserved. Conversely, if the cause is no longer relevant and the removal of a given function does not violate essential values (such as aesthetics, ergonomics, or economy), its elimination may be considered without creating inconsistencies in the design process.

Using the method described above, the author analyzed the urban layouts of Kurpie villages, individual homesteads, cottage floor plans, and architectural details. At the conclusion of the analyses, the identified archetypes were subjectively ranked and assigned contemporary equivalents of functions and meanings.

The principal archetype from the past, defined as the “Heart of the Home,” was interpreted as the contemporary kitchen. This decision was based on the kitchen’s role as a less formal integrative space for household members and their guests than the living room. In Poland, there is a common saying: “The best parties take place in the kitchen.” This expression is not without reason; even in contemporary times, the kitchen frequently serves as the true social center of domestic life.

On this basis, the design presented on the boards was developed—encompassing the functional layout, the building’s massing, and its architectural expression. The former enfilade arrangement of rooms was adapted to contemporary standards of privacy and intimacy through the introduction of circulation spaces surrounding the main core of the building, leading to private rooms.

The chimney—so significant in traditional Kurpie houses—was reinterpreted as the structural and symbolic core of the house. Openings within this contemporary “chimney” allow visual connections and communication between the different zones of the home. An opening at the top of the modern chimney performs the primary daylighting function for the heart of the house. Similarly to the original chimney, the contemporary version contains integrated ventilation and heating systems.

The form of the house transitions from a formalized front façade, modeled on the former archetype, to a far more contemporary rear elevation, which in the past was shaped with greater freedom. This freedom has been utilized here to introduce solutions suited to present-day conditions, such as large glazing surfaces and a timber post-and-beam structural system.

Architectural details were designed with modern technologies in mind, while maintaining clear references to tradition. This approach was intended to create a legible connection to a disappearing archetype that has not yet received widely recognized contemporary architectural interpretations.

The proposed evolutionary method is intended to support the designer’s personal creative process rather than to parametrize it. As a result, diverse outcomes are possible, even when the method is applied by a single author. To verify the method, the author conducted a conceptual design experiment in which the “Heart of the Home” was identified not with the kitchen but with the living room. This represents one of several possible, subjective responses to the design question posed.