IMAGINARY OBJECTS (IO) DESIGNS ARCHITECTURES THAT NOT ONLY LET CHILDREN ‘LIVE’ BUT ALSO ALLOW THEM TO ‘PLAY’ AND ‘CREATE’ THEIR OWN WORLDS
TEXT: KARN PONKIRD
PHOTO: JINNAWAT BORIHANKIJANAN
(For Thai, press here)
Set amidst open grasslands and agricultural terrain on the outskirts of Chonburi, a modest cabin quietly occupies a privately owned plot measuring approximately half a rai (800 square meters). With a built area of no more than 50 square meters, this small-scale structure, with its limited footprint accommodates a fully functional program tailored precisely to meet the client’s requirements. More significantly, its spatial logic is designed to be flexible, allowing the architecture to grow and adapt in response to the evolving activities of its users. This project marks another collaboration between Yarinda Bunnag and Roberto Requejo Belette of Imaginary Objects (IO), who have once again taken on the challenge of designing architecture with children as its primary users, where ‘play’ is the central activity.
Prior to the intervention, the site consisted of two camper modules, a basic bathroom, and an informal seating area. The client’s brief was rooted in a desire to instill in their four children an appreciation for the value and beauty of nature, and to provide opportunities for them to engage with it through their own senses, particularly during a formative age when play is the most powerful form of learning. As such, the space was required to function simultaneously as a place for rest, learning, and play. Aesthetically, the architecture was conceived with deliberate simplicity, allowing the more ephemeral elements of the site such as wind, light, and landscape to envelop both the structure and its users. To accommodate the need for rapid construction, the architects selected straightforward materials and chose to have the various components prefabricated in a factory and transported for final assembly on site.
The primary functions of the project were divided into distinct volumes, such as the cluster containing the two bedrooms and the one housing the bathroom. This organizational strategy helped streamline the construction process. For instance, the bathroom, which required a complex plumbing system, was positioned directly on the ground to facilitate installation. Meanwhile, to reflect the client’s personal admiration for the architecture of vernacular Thai houses, which are open to nature and shaped by climatic logic, other parts of the cabin were raised off the ground to promote natural ventilation.
At this stage, Imaginary Objects (IO) drew on their experience with what they describe as ‘play architecture’ to infuse the compact cabin with a heightened sense of spatial delight. Roberto observes that designing for children requires rethinking conventional architectural approaches. Rather than assuming limited, single-use scenarios for each space, the design must accommodate a broader range of physical activities such as running, crawling, swinging, climbing, and hanging. As a result, the spatial configuration had to remain as continuous and fluid as possible, allowing for uninterrupted movement and exploration. At the same time, these elements needed to meet fundamental safety standards, preserving both the flow of learning and the well-being of young users.
It is precisely the blurred line between play and safety that keeps this architectural typology continually fresh. Yarinda explains that when designing ‘play architecture’; whether in the case of this cabin or in IO’s other playground-architectural projects, it is fundamentally about maintaining a careful balance in the ‘experiences’ children are meant to encounter. Being both designers and parents themselves has allowed Yarinda and Roberto to develop a deeper understanding of the characters and dynamics of children’s activities. Equally important is the ongoing dialogue between designer and client, particularly when it comes to determining whether the final outcome should lean more toward the protective or the playful. In many instances, IO chooses to design architectural elements that are challenging (a deliberate distinction from risky) to encourage children’s learning processes and foster the courage to explore beyond their comfort zones. The cabin’s stairs, for example, are not merely designed for walking up and down, but also support climbing, crawling, and the development of self-awareness and caution. Engaging the entire body in these movements helps children build familiarity with physical activity and prepares them for more complex motor tasks as they grow older.
Even seemingly straightforward programmatic volumes, like the two bedrooms, are reconfigured with subtle shifts in elevation, introducing variations in height to enrich the spatial experience. Responding to the brief’s emphasis on bringing children closer to nature, the architects also introduced large sliding windows. When fully opened, these windows allow the interior to merge seamlessly with the surrounding environment, fostering an immediate connection to the outdoors.
The varying levels of the three masses (the two bedrooms and the bathroom) generate new spatial possibilities. The raised roof, designed to enhance natural ventilation, creates voids between the ceiling and the roofline. These in-between spaces become accessible areas where children can climb, explore, and engage in playful activities. It is these unexpected spatial outcomes that IO defines as Open-End spaces or areas without predetermined functions, where children are free to assign meaning and use based on their imagination. In many cases, the ways in which these spaces are ultimately used go far beyond what the designers themselves initially envisioned. This flexibility of use is what breathes life into play architecture. The architect’s role, then, is less about prescribing functions and more about observing, anticipating, and preparing environments that seamlessly support a wide range of activities.
For instance, the decision to place a hand-washing sink outside the bathroom, adjacent to the veranda, responds directly to the rhythms of play. After messy activities, children can clean up without the need to navigate in and out of enclosed spaces. The veranda itself serves as a multipurpose platform and informal lounge. A long wooden table is fixed along the edge, serving as a workspace for the children’s favorite artistic activities or simply as a place to sit, relax, and dangle their legs, while also functioning as a subtle safety barrier.
The Kid Cabin serves as a spatial extension not only for the clients but also for the architects themselves. It represents a convergence of IO’s prior experience in playground design with the typology of residential architecture. While the cabin was initially conceived for the children, it remains equally accessible to both parents, who can share in the use of the space. It stands as an example of open-ended architecture, capable of evolving and adapting to its users over time. Ultimately, while designing architecture for children presents unique challenges, both Yarinda and Roberto affirm that it is a joyful and creatively stimulating pursuit – one that continues to spark the imagination during every stage of their design process.
