An Interview With Third Winner Of Tiny House 2024 Architecture Competition - Stephen Centorrino and Owen Axisa

SO- Take part. Not necessarily to win, but to think deeply. Vision competitions help develop clarity in your ideas and the courage to pursue them fully. Over time, they train your mind to ask the right questions—not only about design, but about your architectural stance.

In practice, your ideas may be overlooked or criticised. People will challenge your philosophy. The important thing is to remain proud and fully convinced of your work. In competitions, you are anonymous—there is no ego, no reputation. That space allows you to present your ideas freely, without fear. It’s in that freedom that you begin to find your voice.

SO- The design began with a question: how can a home respond to time, not just space? We explored rotation as a spatial strategy—allowing the structure to align with sunlight and circadian rhythm throughout the day. This led to a modular Y-configuration, where each arm serves a distinct function. The process moved between sketching, diagramming, and testing proportion through physical and digital models. Passive strategies were integrated early, driving form rather than following it. The result was not a statement piece, but a calibrated system—quiet, adaptable, and driven by rhythm over image.

SO- One of the main challenges was designing a spatial system that remained both conceptually clear and technically grounded. We wanted the form to rotate in response to circadian rhythms—not as a spectacle, but as a quiet mechanism embedded in daily life. This required careful consideration of modularity, balance, and programme distribution.

SO- We began by questioning how a tiny house could adapt not just to place, but to time—responding to changing daylight, moods, and rhythms. This led us to explore rotation as a spatial strategy, aligning the home to the sun’s path and the occupant’s circadian cycle. We broke down the programme into modules, each with a distinct function, allowing flexibility in layout and assembly. Instead of focusing on mobility as transport, we treated it as temporal adaptability. Revolve became a home that orients itself to life as it unfolds—quietly dynamic, compact, and in constant dialogue with light and landscape.

SO- We were drawn to this competition because it embraces architectural essentials—space, light, time—within a compact, challenging format. The brief encouraged deep thinking beyond aesthetics, prompting questions about mobility, scale, temporality, and what it means to feel at home. It was also refreshing to see emphasis placed on adaptability, sustainability, and quality of life—qualities often overlooked in larger-scale projects. As public architects, we’re used to constraints, but this competition allowed for creative freedom within a disciplined framework. It felt like an opportunity to reflect, rethink, and test ideas that could have relevance beyond just the tiny house typology.