1. Integration at the urban and the architectural scale

2. At the urban scale, high variability makes possible to achieve high complexity built space which could satisfy various small-scale specifications.
The possibility to assembly a construction manually, without using heavy or cumbersome machinery, while at the same time all the construction's infrastructure emerges as a side effect of the assembly, promotes a low-cost, decentralized, bottom-up, user-based production procedure.

3. The coherent structure and the variability of the urban space could enhance synergistic effects that concern both the bioclimatic and the energy behavior of the construction. This can be achieved through both the flexibility of the form of the construction (which makes possible energy / temperature efficient forms) and the high connectivity of the large scale energy transfer system.
The support system of a construction acts as a unified space-truss. Light weight beams could support a large construction, as the support system is based on synergy rather than on mass of the structural elements. Light weight saves both energy and material resources, while promotes the decentralized user-controlled character of the production by making both construction and modification procedures easy to handle.
High earthquake resistance is achieved, due to the cooperation of beams distributed in many different directions. The particular distribution also reduces the average length of the route connecting different positions in 3D space through the structural system. As a consequence, the total length of either electrical cables or plumbing pipes, which are incorporated in the support system, is also reduced.

4. Urban qualities concerning either the relation between built and open space or the allocation of private, semi-private and public space, can be distributed in 3D space at different design scales. This could result in the formation of a sort of 3D neighborhoods.

5. Architectural space does not have to be distributed only in building-scale and room-scale units, as other smaller, larger or intermediate scale units are also available.

6. Now we are going to present a residence, part of which appears in the red ellipses, in order to examine the system's possibilities in both the architectural and the furniture scale.
Such units could compose different residences properly structured within the urban space.

7. Sitting Room Entrance Kitchen Dinning Room Bathroom Bedroom
Childrens’ Bedrooms
Childrens’ Yard
The residence does not look like a discrete building, but rather as a network of either room-scale or sub-room-scale architectural units. Perimetric placement of furniture within each unit utilizes the ergonomic benefits of the oblique boundary. In cases of large units (e.g. Dinning Room / Kitchen) the furniture could define sub-unit-scale architectural space.
These parts of the residence where visible in the previous slide.
Perimetric placement of furniture could be supported by either a modular furniture system or a modular fitting system that makes possible adaptation of conventional furniture to the oblique boundary.
In this model the residence's boundaries appear transparent to reveal the interior space.

8. Here is an alternative morphology of modular perimetric furniture.

9. Central placement of furniture in the architectural units—although not recommended—is also possible.

10. As a consequence, differentiation of the materials of the external surfaces is important.
The abstract 3D model shown before presents the external surfaces of all construction modules to have a uniform white material. However the external surfaces constitute a critical communication channel between the construction and the environment.
They are highly connected with the infrastructure, which is incorporated in the boundary construction modules, while they can act as collectors of energy propagated through the infrastructure, or—in a similar manner—as part of the cooling system. Besides, their appearance affects the aesthetics of the construction.

11. Differentiation could be based on the developmental paradigm: prefabricated surfaces having different materials could be viewed as alternative finish elements of general types of boundary construction modules. The system's variability is increased (once again) by an exponential factor that represents the number of the possible materials.

12. Modular frames attached to the external surfaces could support plants that contribute to both the bioclimatic system and the construction's aesthetics. Plants can be viewed as an additional possible material of the external surfaces.

13. A modular "green roof" system, compatible with the "floor zone's" space frame, could both enhance the bioclimatic system …

14. The geometric form of the construction could be vanished in a texture resembling to a natural environment. This could be viewed as an aesthetic aspect of the effort to unify the building system with the ecosystem.
… and allow planting of external livable space.