Project Description

The 10 m³ challenge began as a playful constraint. At first, the volume felt dense with possibility. We were puzzled, slightly overwhelmed, and excited by how much could fit inside. But rather than immediately designing within the cube, we decided to interrogate the geometry itself.

Ten cubic meters is, mathematically, simple. In a perfect cubic state, it is a box roughly 2.154 meters on all sides. In a standard Cartesian coordinate system, we define it as (x, y, z). This geometry anchors the cube in space, telling us exactly where it is. But this view is static. It says nothing about when the cube is. Without time, the object remains abstract, therefore detached from reality.

To make it real, we must shift to Minkowski’s spacetime framework. Here, the coordinates expand to (x, y, z, ct). Time is no longer separate from space; they are woven together. Now, the cube doesn’t just sit in a vacuum, it occupies a moment. It exists somewhere and somewhen.

Once we established this, we pushed the thought experiment further. We imagined projecting this cube through space at the speed of light.

Physics tells us that at such extreme velocities, objects undergo length contraction. To an external observer, the cube would appear to compress in the direction it is moving, looking more like a flat plane than a box. Crucially, the volume does not change for the cube itself, but its appearance changes entirely depending on the observer’s frame of reference. This "projected cube" drives the project's central argument: Space is not just length, width, and height; it is defined by the observer. The math may be fixed, but the meaning is relative.

Architecture, however, usually treats the cubic meter as an absolute. It views measurement as a neutral, universal truth. Building codes and blueprints quantify life into calculated enclosures, assuming a false equivalence—that if the geometric dimensions are equal, the value of the space is equal. Lived reality proves otherwise.

A 10 m³ enclosure can be two radically different worlds. In a context of abundance, it functions as an adequate bathroom. In a context of scarcity, that same 10 m³ becomes an entire living environment for a family of 5. The geometric parameters are identical but the existence unfolding inside them is not.

The projected cube is therefore an argument. Just as the cube’s physical form seems to shift based on the speed of the observer, the meaning of architectural volume shifts based on who inhabits it and when. If identical metrics generate unequal worlds, then geometry alone cannot explain experience. Equal volume does not guarantee equal existence. The question is not whether space can be measured, it can. The question is whether measurement is enough.

So, the inquiry remains: If equal volume cannot guarantee equal existence, where does architecture truly reside?

This question is not meant to be answered universally. It must be answered consciously, with an awareness of one’s own position, bias, and frame of reference.