Architectural Space as a Network - Physical and Virtual Communities

ARCHITECTURAL SPACE AS A NETWORK
PHYSICAL AND VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES

Dr Kerstin Sailer
Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London

Lorentz Workshop ‘Innovation at the Verge – Computational Models of Physical / Virtual Space Interaction’,
ArchitecturalNL, 17-21aDec 2012
Leiden / Space as Network Dr Kerstin Sailer, December 2012

Architectural Space as a Network
Flow of space represented as a spatial network → patterns of co-presence of occupants

construct affects

SOCIAL
BEHAVIOURS

Architectural Space as a Network Dr Kerstin Sailer, December 2012

Co-presence of occupants:
‘Virtual Community’



“Co-present individuals may not know each other, or even acknowledge
each other, but it will be argued that this does not mean to say that co-
presence is not a social fact and a social resource. Co-present people are
not a community, but they are part of the raw material for community, which
may in due course become activated, and can be activated if it becomes
necessary. However, even without conversion into interaction, patterns of
co-presence are a psychological resource, precisely because co-presence
is the primitive form of our awareness of others. Patterns of co-presence
and co-awareness are the distinctive product of spatial design, and
constitute, it will be argued, the prime constituents of what will be called the
‘virtual community’.”
Bill Hillier (1996): Space is the Machine


Architectural Space as a Network – The Method of Space Syntax




Total depth: 16

1 1
2 0 2
1
1
3 2
3
10

4 2
5 3
1
2
4
6 3
0
10
Total depth: 30



Floor plan Visual graph analysis

Axial topology

Metric topology Space usage, e.g. movement flow
Integrated Segregated


Space Syntax Research: Comparative Analysis of Cities

1000m 500m

Part of Tokyo Part of London

© Bill Hillier et al


LONDON and its
region within the
M25, with its
strong centre and
strong radials,
but weak lateral
connections
between the
radials

10000m

BEIJING with its
relative weak
centre and weak
radials, but strong
lateral structure
between radials

10000m

TOKYO with its fairly
strong centre, strong
radials and strong
laterals, generating the
strong sub-city structure
characteristic of Tokyo

10000m

Space Syntax Research: City Centres and Retail Activity

© Laura Vaughan, Sam Griffiths, Muki Haklay, Kate Jones

Space Syntax Research: Public Spaces

Old Market Square,
Nottingham

© Anna Rose / Space Syntax Ltd.


Space Syntax Research: Public Spaces
Old Market Square,
Nottingham

© Anna Rose / Space
Syntax Ltd.


Space Syntax Research: Museums
Spatial configuration and movement flows at Tate Britain

SOCIAL
BEHAVIOURS

© Bill Hillier / Space Syntax Ltd.


Space Syntax Research: Libraries
Movement flows in the British Library

Readers
Movement flows on Upper Ground Floor – Data collection by UCL MSc AAS students in 2009 and 2010 Non-Readers


Space Syntax Research: Workplace Environments
Movement flows in offices: result of configuration and attractor placement

SOCIAL
BEHAVIOURS

© Kerstin Sailer


From Spatial to Transpatial Solidarities: from Virtual to Real Communities

SOCIAL
BEHAVIOURS


Spatial and Transpatial Solidarities
Concept of spatiality and transpatial solidarity as two distinct ways of creating relationships
between individuals:

“In their elementary forms, in effect, buildings (…) can define a relation to others by conceptual
analogy, rather than spatial relation. The inhabitant of a house in a village, say, is related to his
neighbours spatially, in that he occupies a location in relation to them, but also he relates to them
conceptually, in that his interior system of spatialised categories is similar or different from those
of his neighbours. He relates, it might be said, transpatially as well as spatially.”
(Hillier and Hanson 1984: 18ff)

Key features of spatial and transpatial ordering of categories:
• Affinity between individuals spatially as well as transpatially driven
• Societies may use one way of ordering more than another
• Ordering of space not of equal conspicuousness to every culture



SOCIAL SOLIDARITIES
FORM Mechanic Organic
Integration through similarity Interdependence through differentiation
Homogeneity Heterogeneity
ORGANISATIONAL Long models, i.e. strongly programmed Short models, i.e. weakly programmed
OPERATIONS Hierarchies Network Structure
Vertical communication Lateral communication
Transpatial Spatial
SPATIAL Segregated and sparse space Integrated and dense space
IMPLICATIONS Interior relations, ‘inside’ Exterior relations, ‘outside’
Well defined categorical differences Weakly defined categorical differences
between spaces between spaces
High levels of control of events and Low levels of control of events and
encounter encounter

Sources: Durkheim 1893, Burns and Stalker 1961, Hillier and Hanson 1984, Hillier and Penn 1991; summarised in Sailer 2010


Spatial Solidarities Transpatial Solidarities
WHERE WE ARE WHO WE ARE
Location, Neighbourhoods, Proximity, Gender, Age, Profession, Affiliations,
Physical Closeness Memberships, Interests

The Guildhall, City of London


Interplay between Spatial & Transpatial – Example 1
Organisational Cultures in the British Museum

High levels of local integration yet global segregation → distinct org.
cultures, segregated spaces allow transpatial identities to flourish

Lack of local identities in a Media Company

“Brands need to own their space and feel separate to other brands. If
you walk around the office you would never know where you are
unless you already know people. This doesn't enable people to make
new friends or contacts.”

High levels of global integration and uniform workstation layout → lack of identities,
disregard of transpatial solidarities

Time-space routines and social cohesion in Research Institute

High levels of global integration → emergence of social cohesion and contacts fostered in
transpatially organised clusters

Two mechanisms for bonding and social relationships between people:
1. Sharing same local world and coming together in physical space (spatial solidarity);
2. Shared interests or goals, which may overcome / transverse boundaries of physical
space (transpatial solidarity);

TRANS-
SPATIAL
SPATIAL

Example: The Guild

Virtual Community Real Community


Impact of Technologies – Physical and Virtual Spaces


Impact of Technologies
Emergence of ‘Online
Communities’

Source: http://xkcd.com/802/

Impact of Technologies – Networked Individualism
Networked Individualism (Rainie and Wellman 2012):
People function as connected individuals; partial membership in multiple networks instead of
permanent membership in settled groups;
Made possible by:
• Social Network Revolution: opportunities to reach beyond tightly knit groups
• Internet Revolution: communication and information-gathering power
• Mobile Revolution: accessibility, anywhere and anytime

CURRENT / FUTURE SOCIETY:
PAST SOCIETY: networked individualism
fixed groups

KINSHIP WORK

CHURCH
Village / Town Various spatial scales


Impact of Technologies: Physical and Digital Space
How do people find information? Example: Rosetta Stone at British Museum

OPTION 1:
Travel to London,
visit British Museum
(physical space)

OPTION 2:
Go to website of the
British Museum
(digital space)


Finding information on Rosetta Stone at British Museum: Option 1 (physical space)

Structured search: looking
at map or asking information
desk (2-3 steps)
Exploratory: finding
interesting / relevant exhibits
on your own (2-10 steps,
possibly more)


Finding information on Rosetta Stone at British Museum: Option 2 (digital space)

Structured search:
typing name of exhibit
into search box (2
steps)
[Exploratory: clicking
through the online
collections (3-10
steps, possibly more)]


Finding information on Rosetta Stone at British Museum
→ different spatial experiences in physical & digital space, but also different social realities

PHYSICAL SPACE DIGITAL SPACE


What is the difference between physical space and digital space in enabling the get together
of people and allowing communities to flourish?

PHYSICAL SPACE DIGITAL SPACE

Complex spatial configuration Simple or no spatial configuration at all
Deep or shallow Shallow / flat
Relative position or location matters Access matters
Distribution of users through spatial Distribution of users through access /
configuration / attractors self-selection process
Unplanned encounter Structured encounter
Co-presence Lone activity


Conclusions
Physical space in buildings and cities structures co-presence and interaction patterns of
people;
Co-presence of people in space gives rise to ‘virtual community’: raw material of society,
awareness and psychological dimension;
Communities emerge from the combination of spatial and transpatial worlds;
Technologies change the way in which people interact, yet physical space remains an
important dimension;
Digital space allows online communities to flourish → distinctly different from affordances of
physical space and implications for social relationships;

Similarly to Space Syntax which offers a language for discursive and structured analysis of
physical space, an approach to systematically investigate the structure and affordances of
digital spaces is needed


Thank you!
Email: k.sailer@ucl.ac.uk
Twitter: @kerstinsailer

Dr Kerstin Sailer
Lecturer in Complex Buildings
Bartlett School of Graduate Studies
University College London
14 Upper Woburn Place
London WC1H 0NN
United Kingdom

Architectural Space as a Network - Physical and Virtual Communities

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Architectural Space as a Network - Physical and Virtual Communities

More from UCL

Recently uploaded

Architectural Space as a Network - Physical and Virtual Communities