The Distinct Spatial Characteristics of Exárchia, Athens

The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies
Exárchia Athens, unlike the rest?
the structure of diversity in urban space
Georgios E Papamanousakis
September 2009
a thesis submitted in part fulfillment of the degree of
Master of Science in Advanced Architectural Studies
University College London

ii
Abstract
This thesis constructs an insight into the district of Exárchia in Athens by examining the ways in
which heterogeneity and diversity are structured in urban space. Through a comparative study
the analysis identifies distinctive spatial features and patterns by which space is constituted,
used and appropriated by its users. Employing a set of methodologies based on a series of
analytical walking drifts, Exárchia and two neighbouring areas are described through a set of
multilayered maps in terms of spatial structure, use and activity. Elements of public interface,
building types, block sizes and intersections, are examined in their interrelation to the local and
global distribution of spatial uses as well as to the rhythm of street activities, while human
agency is brought into the analysis through a social survey of the people using the three areas
of study.
The primary aim of the research is to answer whether the special feel and distinct social and
cultural character of Exárchia coexist within a spatial specificity. Following the analysis and
comparative readings it is argued that Exárchia is indeed a markedly distinct spatial structure. It
is demonstrated that this very spatial structure is used by a heterogeneous population and
provides for a multitude of diverse activities and uses both at the global scale but most notably
at the micro-scale of the built environment. It is suggested that a revaluation of these elements
specific to Exárchia through a bottom-up model in planning policy can positively contribute
towards the creation of sustainable urban areas.
Key words
Exarchia, Athens, diversity, interface, stoa, mapping

iii
Contents
List of Figures, Table, Maps v
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction 9
Aims and Scope of this Research 9
Literature Review 11
Exárchia 15
Names and Boundaries 15
Historical Development 16
The Place of Resistance 17
Exárchia Today 18
Methodology 21
Contrastive Equals 21
On Site Observations 24
Mapping 24
Social Survey 27
Maps of a Spatial Genome 29
Exárchia 30
Kolonáki 37
Viktória 43
Analysis 49
Stoá and Public Interface 49
Blocks and Intersections 51

iv
Heights and Lows 53
Types and Uses 54
Use and Spatial Capacity 56
Rationing Spatial Use 57
Street Transience 60
Human Complexity 62
Conclusions 66
Exárchia and the Nature of Diversity 66
Last Words 67
References 68
Appendix 71
Survey Questionnaire 72
Survey Questionnaire English translation 74

v
List of Figures, Tables, Maps
Figures
figure 1: Exárchia, aerial view * 15
figure 2: polykatoikías in Exárchia ** 19
figure 3: stoá in Exárchia ** 19
figure 4: Kolonáki, aerial view * 22
figure 5: Viktória, aerial view * 23
figure 6: mapping notation 25
figure 7: the areas of Exárchia, Kolonáki, Viktória, in central Athens, aerial view 29
figure 8: location of areas of study in Attica plain, aerial view 29
figure 9: Exárchia, studied routes on aerial view * 30
figure 10: Kolonáki, studied routes on aerial view * 37
figure 11: Viktória, studied routes on aerial view * 43
figure 12: uses of the stoá in Exárchia ** 51
figure 13: juxtaposition of building types in Exárchia ** 55
figure 14: distribution of spatial use capacities in the three areas of study 59
figure 15: mixture of activities on a street in Exárchia ** 62
Tables
table 1: stoá and public interface 50
table 2: block sizes and intersections 52
table 3: differentiation of building heights 53
table 4: differentiation of building types 54
table 5: capacities of spatial use 56
table 6: average deviation of spatial use capacities 57
table 7: variance of spatial use capacities 58
table 8: day, night and flexible activities on street level 61
* aerial views at the same scale.
** own photographs.

vi
table 9: flexible blocks, night to day activity ratios 61
table 10: frequency of non-choice and choice activities for different groups 64
table 11: ratios of choice to non-choice activities’ frequencies, deviation from average 64
table 12: frequency of all activities for people not resident in Athens, deviation from average 65
Maps
map 1: Exárchia edge to edge route, segment B1-B2 31
map 4: Exárchia block route Ba 34
map 5: Exárchia block route Bb 35
map 6: Exárchia block route Bc 36
map 7: Kolonáki edge to edge route, segment A1-A2 38
map 8: Exárchia edge to edge route, segment A2-A3 39
map 9: Kolonáki edge to edge route, segment A3-A4 40
map 10: Kolonáki block route Aa 41
map 11: Kolonáki block route Ab 42
map 12: Viktória edge to edge route, segment C1-C2 44
map 15: Viktória block route Ca 47
map 16: Viktória block route Cb 48

vii
Acknowledgements
A critical part of this thesis included a small scale social survey involving the people using the
different areas of study. I wish to thank each one of them for allowing me to view the spaces of
the city through their eyes.
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Laura Vaughan for her support and enthusiasm towards
my work. Kerstin Sailer and Sam Grifftihs have provided me with exceptionally useful advice on
various stages of my research. Feedback from Professor Julienne Hanson has been truly
invaluable in the final stages of this thesis.
In Athens, Chryssa and Elsa Lionaki have equipped me with an insight of Exárchia that would
otherwise be very difficult to acquire. Georgia Kanapitsa has helped me wholeheartedly through
her experience and knowledge of the area.
Galera journal have kindly supplied me with information material that has greatly enriched this
work.
The heated discussions on scientific methodologies, space, society and the city, with Anneta
Vrontoulaki, have been a source of thought and reflection throughout the duration of my
research. Andreas Kardamakis has been a continuous source of inspiration, our time-lagged
conversations on the comprehension of complexity through mathematical order has had a
defining effect on this work. Experiencing the less than shiny spaces of Athens with Maria
Saridaki, Areti Stavraki and Jens Mangerud has been fundamental.
I would like to thank my flatmates Claudia Kogler, Martin McGrath and Claudia Boldt, for
bearing with my research obsessions for the last four months.
Above all, I would like to thank my parents for their encouragement and support throughout this
year.

viii
“It is as if for centuries a substance has flown from the human eye that affects and changes the world, a glue that binds
places and things. That substance doesn't really exist, things are not bind together into a meaningful whole by any glue.
And yet it is our eyes that bind things together, that give them a place in the whole; a look that hesitates between
understanding and incomprehension, as if we intuitively want to assign things a place in an otherwise chaotic world by
the simple fact that we see them; though without necessarily having the guarantee that we can actually place them.”
Stefan Hertmans, Intercities

9
Introduction
The point of departure of this research work has been an intense fascination about places; there
are many and none ‘feels’ similar to any other. It is this fascination of a place that it aims to
unravel by describing, then analysing, and lastly comparing its’ spaces to those of others, in
order to comprehend the spatial articulation of the district of Exárchia in Athens and quest for
patterns, models, ways, in which its constituent elements compose an ever-changing but highly
elaborate choreography; to examine the hypothesis that its’ specific spatial characteristics
contribute towards its’ heterogeneous and diverse urban realm.
Aims and Scope of this Research
The research aims to describe and analyse the defining features of Exárchia as an urban district
with a distinct spatial and social character and distinguish in them spatial structure, spatial use,
and the nature of activities taking place in the spaces of the interface between built and unbuilt.
Critically it aims to identify a pattern of interaction of these features, specific to Exárchia, as a
catalyst for diversity.
In her anthropological study of the area, Ellen Zatz (1983) focused on the nature of kinship in
Exárchia, suggesting an interrelationship of the spatial features of the urban milieu to specific
expressions of its’ society. Exárchia’s spatial character can be framed through three key
components; the polykatoikía as the vernacular type of building in the area, the grid network
itself, and territorial fragmentation.
The polykatoikía, the commonplace building fabric of Exárchia, provided from the 1930s
onwards the popular model for the rapid urbanisation of the Greek capital. This type is a
configuration of a reinforced concrete frame and brick walls, where individual spaces are
arranged as separate units, originally residential, throughout the different storeys, while the
ground level is open to a multitude of non-residential uses. “I think this is a very attractive
system… the buildings seem to have a kind of automatic height regulation …with a maximum of
six floors. It is a very interesting scale because you are more or less tied to the ground… a
quality reinforced by the fact that all entrances are on the street level and an enormous amount
of retail and commercial activities on the ground floor areas. I see in this system a kind of
perfect ideal: we have a concrete frame-house, which has a 5-meter high ground floor area
where you can do everything, completely flexible in terms of programming; then you have a
certain amount of storeys with some outside space closed by glass or walls… The buildings are
not architectural perfect objects, but are structures which are being shaped by their users.”
(Christiansee, 2001).

10
Despite its omnipresence all over the majority of Greek cities and Athens in particular,
polykatoikía has not often been an object of research as to the urban potential of its typology.
While its’ multi-functionalism is claimed to be diffuse and its form relatively indifferent and
repetitive from one area to another, this research aims to examine how specific features, of its
spatial structure, such as the stoá
1
, and its use, such as the primary building uses and the
activities it shelters on street level, manifest themselves and whether there can be a link to
differences in this ‘diffuse’ multi-functionalism.
Exárchia is characterised by many as kéntro-apókentro (centre off-centre); while being situated
in the centre of the urban grid of greater Athens it is in some ways like “living in a suburb”
(Papagiorgis, 2008, my translation). The district is right next to the urban core of Athens with
principle boulevards surrounding it (Patisíon, Alexándras, Akadimías) and major thoroughfares
traversing it (Asklipioú, Ippokrátous, Mavromicháli, Chariláou Trikoúpi), both used to link parts of
Athens that are outside it. At the same time, little streets, some pedestrianised, co-exist within
this supra-local network; some more local and residential than others which attract people and
activities from outside the neighbourhood. The geometry of this grid can be characterised
mostly as rectilinear and well-connected both at a local and a regional level. Blocks are
relatively small and continuously built.
How does this feeling of centre off-centre relates to the formation of the urban grid in Exárchia,
and how does its differ to other areas? It is often argued that ‘successful’ places are those who
combine neighbourhood life and local activity together with use by people who are outsiders.
The research aims to examine whether Exárchia is indeed such a place, or whether, as often
portrayed in the media, it is much more of an impermeable ‘ghetto’, enclosed to its own
community. Is the articulation of this grid differentiated from other areas in Athens and does this
have an effect on spatial use?
In the course of urbanisation of Athens, Abdelidis (2000, p.36) points out two major features; the
particularly small size of plots resulting from the fragmentation of large integral properties and
the morphological homogeneity resulting from the dominance in construction through the
antiparochí mechanism. Both of these can be argued to create an intense fragmentation of the
urban territory; not only individually owned building blocks are small but also through the
antiparochí, buildings in each of the blocks are further fragmented in terms of ownership; this is
the private initiative where a landowner exchanges land (built or unbuilt) with a percentage of
the future building surface while the rest is exploited by the builder, thus single small-sized
properties were at the same time enlarged –in terms of total surface as construction always
envisaged a significantly higher number of storeys than originally present– and became multi-
owned.
In these ways Exárchia is a mosaic of small and separately owned territories. It is within the
scope of this study to analyse how spatial use is distributed throughout this mosaic and whether
1
Stoá can be described as a modernist portico; a public space in-between the ground-floor external wall of the building and
the street, under the building’s first floor slab and separated from the street by a series of columns cast in concrete and often
clad in marble.

11
it presents a different way in spatial appropriation compared to other areas of Athens. The study
of spatial appropriation and use can in this case be particularly insightful, as it is, by comparison
to most western European countries, extremely loosely regulated by planning. As Dimitris
Oikonomou notes (2000, p.49), a result of this loose regulation in planning is a spatial
organisation intensely characterised by mixed use in the micro-scale of the urban fabric. It is
thus all the more relevant to examine spatial use and spatial structure in the relative absence of
tight planning policies where ‘unplanned’ space acquires an even greater significance.
Today, Exárchia’s representations float among the ‘epicentre of socio-political struggle’, the
‘alternative scene of Athens’, and the ‘ghetto of the anarchists and the junkies’. However in a
more dispassionate view, it is one of the few places in central Athens that has retained a multi-
functional and diverse character of a true urban community (Zatz, 1983; Galera, 2008;
Portaliou, 2008; Tzanavara, 2008; Kamplylis, 2008).
Yet, apart from the multitude of sensational media reports on the area, little attention has been
paid into its qualities in terms of diversity. Even more, judging from the multitude of grassroots
reactions against the proposed plans for the ‘rehabilitation’ of the area, notably during the 2004
Olympic Games make-up of Athens (Indymedia, 2003; Spyropoulou, 2003; Svolis et al., 2003),
top-down planning policy appears to completely disregard these qualities. The major task of this
research is to pierce an insight beyond emotional portrayals of the area, into the structure of this
diversity in urban space and suggest its revaluation.
Literature Review
From a traditional point of the social sciences, space is where societies and social relationships
are reproduced and as such may be subordinate to top-down political decisions that aim at a
reproduction of society as planned by those currently holding political power. At the same time
architecture and urbanism have often claimed their share both at shaping societies but equally
at reflecting the very nature of societies, not only as tools of a political hierarchy but also as
autonomous agents.
The spaces of the city and their relationship to society, have preoccupied urban theory since its
formal appearance alongside the emergence of the modern metropolises. The complexity of
urban space has been stressed throughout urban literature; theatres of social action to
Mumford, places of stark inequalities to Engels, artistic expressions to Site, alienating
environments to Simmel, functional machines to Le Corbusier. Apart from the theory, a number
of practices in architecture and urbanism have sought to reform society through spatial design;
infamously through modernism’s adventures, architecture was, not seldomly, stigmatised for
social failures.
Territorial theories, much in fashion during the modern period have argued for the importance of
space corresponding to social categories; an argument applied to modernist planning and

12
pervading the logic of zoning practices and the mono-functional use of space. Theories of
heterogeneity on the other hand have claimed the unimportance of aiming at spatial
correspondence since society, and urban society in particular is anyway heterogeneous and
space is merely a subordinate product without agency.
In their article “the Architecture of Community”, Hanson and Hillier (1987) argue for the positive
social role of “structured non-correspondence”. The argument put forward is that spatial
structure can contribute towards an heterogeneous urban realm; a practice of “structured non-
correspondence”, where spaces are not exclusive to social groups but correspond to a social
multiplicity, both spatial and trans-spatial, permitting “the mixing of local inhabitants and
strangers from further a field”, a characteristic of “structured non-correspondence”. In this way,
space brings together what is otherwise socially separate. In the same article they attest that
“what we seem to lack are spatial strategies for designing local configurations of space in such
a way as to orientate or project them into the global system rather than to localise them in
enclaves. It seems that systems of social relations which tend to non-correspondence… …are
aimed precisely at creating this kind of non-hierarchical global cohesion”.
In her seminal work, “The Death and Life of American Cities”, Jane Jacobs (1961) states, as
“the most important point [her book] has to make”, four conditions as the basis for creating city
diversity; a mixture of primary uses within each district and within each part of the district, short
blocks and multiple intersections, a variety of buildings of different types and ages, and a dense
concentration of people including people resident in the district. In describing the life of her
neighbourhood in late 1950s Greenwich Village, she stresses the importance of the street as an
interface between public and private space, as well as the alternation of activities and people in
time during the day, in creating what she eloquently describes as the “ballet on the sidewalk”.
The notion of time, or rather rhythm, as described in her description of people simply doing “little
more than coming and going”, is taken up by John Allen in “City Worlds” where he argues for an
understanding of the “rhythmic landscape” of cities; intensity of activity, different uses and
people, even changing patterns of light and smells that recompose the city hour by hour
(Massey et al.,1999).
Jacobs work at the time was a powerful voice against modernist planning dogmas of zoning and
the mono-functional use of land. The reappraisal of the traditional city model in the last decade,
exactly for its qualities of diversity, socio-economic and environmental sustainability reaffirms
the continuous relevance of her work (Montgomery, 1998). Planning policy changes in the UK
aim to address issues of a socio-environmental sustainability through planning for diversity
(Planning Policy Statements, 2005). At the same time, movements such as the New Urbanism
in the US borrow heavily from a diversity and sustainability agenda, in their claims of ‘building
community’, even if they are often criticised for aiming at little more than creating a marketable
“image of community” (Krieger et al., 1999; Harvey, 1997).
The multidimensional nature of the street is equally stressed by Stanford Anderson. He notes
that “the intermediate position of streets in the environment, intersecting public and private,

13
individual and society, movement and space, built and unbuilt, architecture and planning,
demands that simultaneous attention be given to people, the physical environment, and their
numerous interrelations” (Anderson, 1978, p.1). Through a similar ‘ecological’ perspective, Jahn
Gehl’s “Life Between Buildings” (1987) presents a detailed and very humane study of the city’s
physical interface and its relationship to social activity and use. Gehl argues for the role of the
spaces of urban interface as being fundamental to both the quantity and the quality of human
activities in public space. Recent studies on the interface of the city such as Milos Bobic’s
“Between the Edges” (2004), a study concentrating on the role of interface and examining in
detail the street-building apparatus in the streets of Amsterdam, equally stress its importance
and pointing towards a gap in current urban analysis.
Anderson apart from calling for a contextual approach to city design, suggests a variety of
methods towards a representational model where social factors and human qualities can be
integrated in spatial mapping and thus describe more fully the qualities of an ‘urban ecology’, at
the same time criticising ‘abstract’ representational models: “the model developed by the
Cambridge University Centre for Land Use and Built Form Studies employs an organisational
tree which first separates the social issues from the physical issues and then cleaves the
physical elements into channels and spaces for use… Such neat divisions can only reinforce
the reductionism that characterises so much modern action upon the city” (Anderson, 1978,
p.277).
Re-contextualising architectural form and the space of the city, is linked to a tradition starting up
with the Italian “La Tendenza” movement following the second world war. Studies by architects
such as Grassi, Aymonimo, Rossi, Muratori, aimed to analyse ‘historical’ morphologies and
typologies, notably through a study of façade form, cartographic analysis and building plan, and
re-inject ‘historical meaning’ into new, mainly residential developments, in a belief that the city
could be read through its morphological formal elements (Frampton, 1980). However, the Italian
school of typo-morphology remained disinterested to the social fabric of the city and was in fact
often criticised over the employment of typo-morphological studies as a tool for legitimisation of
its projects (Choay, 1980).
It was not until the early 1970s that typo-morphological research was connected to social aspect
of urban space; architects at the Versailles school in France combined methods of the Italian
studies with research by contemporary French sociologists such as Henri Lefebvre, opening a
new direction towards the understanding of urban space (Claessens, 2004). The pioneering
work by architects Pannerai, Castex, and sociologist Depaule, Formes Urbaines, de l’ilot à la
barre, published in France in the late 1970s, focused on the interrelationship of the spatial,
physical form of the city and its socio-economic processes; examining spatial-social
development through case studies in different periods and cities, including the transformation of
Paris by Haussmann, the Garden City movement and Ernst May’s Frankfurt (Castex et al.,
1977). The first English edition nearly 30 years after the original publication confirms the
groundbreaking character of this work and the recurring need and relevance of a contextual
approach in urban analysis.

14
In his paper “mapping urban and social space: towards a socio-cultural understanding of the
built environment”, François Claessens in Delft University presents a methodological framework
along the lines laid out in Formes Urbaines, and argues for a socio-cultural understanding of
urban form; “by bringing together specialised knowledge of the physical form of the built
environment and its social use and meaning we can create a more complex level of
understanding the working and interaction of physical and social urban space” (Classens 2004).
A view echoed in the research work of Arnis Siskna (1997) where features such as block sizes
and forms, are analysed in order to examine their effect on subsequent urban development,
building forms, parcelling, circulation patterns and to an extent also land use.

15
Exárchia
Names and Boundaries
As Biris notes in his work “Ai Toponymíai tis póleos kai ton perichóron ton Athinón” (Biris, 2006),
the area today known as Exárchia, is first referred to as Proásteion, the Greek word for suburb,
meaning before (pro-) the city (ásty). It is later referred to as Neápolis, meaning new (néa) city
(pólis), as opposed to the old city of Athens till then spread under the slopes of the Acropolis.
Part of the area is also referred to as Mouseío and Polytechnío, due to the presence of the
Archaeological Museum and the Polytechnic University built in the late 1870s. The name
Exárchia (in Greek and also transliterated as Exárcheia or Exárhia) appears to come
in use in the early 20
th
century, to refer to the “neighbourhood of Exarchos”, a businessman
from Epirus who owned, by the standards of that era, a large grocery store, pantopoleíon, in the
area (Dimitriadis, 1946, p.26). More recently, in the Genikó Poleodomikó Schédio Dímou
Athinaíon (general planning regulations of the City of Athens), in 1988, in which districts of
Athens are defined, Mouseío - Neápoli - Exárchia, is referred to as an area unit. In this thesis
the term Exárchia is hereafter used.
figure 1 - the district of Exárchia in Athens, aerial view.
In her research Zatz notes that “boundaries of Exárchia are considered by residents as neither
impermeable nor inflexible… At the same time this is not to say that Exárchia is
indistinguishable as a unit of study. Its long-term residents as well as its interested migrants
have a sense of its history and its unique identity. It distinguishes itself by having a population
drawn from every corner of the country, a feature which makes it unlike any other
neighbourhood in Athens” (Zatz, 1983, p.13). Zatz’s approach to the definition of the area’s

16
boundaries consists of interviewing local residents about the spread of the activities that they
think of as of their neighbourhood, the local parishes, and reviewing plans of the ministry of
planning. This definition of the area closely coincides with the area delimited by the surrounding
major thoroughfares and the geographical boundary of the slopes of the Hill of Lycavitos. In all
references by a multitude of authors, while strict delimitation is avoided, Exárchia is quite
consistently defined as this specific area unit (Kairofylas, 2002; Adami, 2008; Portaliou, 2008;
Gallera, 2008). This thesis defines the area of study as delimited by Alexándras boulevard to
the north, by Patisíon and Akadimías boulevards to the west and south-west respectively, and
by Asklipioú street to the south-east (fig. 1).
Historical Development
Likewise in the contemporary urban landscape of Greece, Exárchia was not the product of city
planning. As one of the new settlement areas of liberated Athens, its construction begun
‘illegally’, afthaíreta, round the 1840s by artisans and craftsmen from the Cyclades, at the time
working in the reconstruction of the capital (Portaliou, 2008). However, it did not appear in
official plans of Athens till the mid 1860s; all previous plans by Klenze, Schaubert and Kleanthis,
consistently excluded the area; it was not considered a part of Athens (Adami, 2008; Zatz,
1983).
Humble structures characterise the area till the mid 19
th
century; Exárchia neighbours the centre
of the capital and is simultaneously reminiscent of a working class settlement. In his book
“Ánthropos tou Kósmou”, Grigórios Xenópoulos describes one of the traversing streets;
“Starting in mansions and palaces, marbles, trees and streetlights, and ending in little shelters,
in mudstones and rough earth, in darkness. The prime minister’s house forming one end-corner,
the humble whitewashed shelter of a two daughters’ poor father forming the other” (Xenopoulos,
1888, my translation).
At the turn of the century, the Archaeological Museum, the Polytechnic University and the
University of Athens are already part of the area, while most of it consists of a mixture of low-
rise housing; there are the previous settlements while increasingly the one- to three-storey
neoclassical houses become the norm (Adami, 2008). In the same period, a precursor of the
polykatoikía building appears in the form of two- to three-storey multiple residence buildings,
intended for sale to the migrants of the Greek community of Egypt after 1880 (Portaliou, 2008).
The diversity in housing types, from working class to elaborate neoclassical to collective
residences, reflects the diversity of the resident population composed of working class and
middle bourgeoisie as well as a few ‘distinguished’ residents (Portaliou, 2008). Exárchia
became popular with artists, poets, writers and students, among them Kostís Palamás,
Napoléon Lapathiótis, Nikólaos Polítis, G. Souris, K. Skokos, and was the centre of artistic and
intellectual life. It was considered the quartier latin of Athens (Kairofylas, 2002), “a bohemian
neighbourhood of poets, students and troubadours” (Dimitriadis, 1946, p.14, my translation),
and “contained most of Greece’s bookshops and publishing houses as well as the offices of

17
most of its doctors and lawyers - a fact which was as true [in the early 1980s] as it was a
century [earlier]” (Zatz, 1983, p.21).
From the 1920s to the 1970s, successive waves of migrants settle in the area; these include
firstly the refugees from Asia Minor, then migrants from Trikala, Metsovo and north-eastern
Epirus, and following the end of the Civil War in Greece (1952) migrants from the provinces and
Thessaly (Zatz, 1983). These groups intermixed with the local population as well as the
transient population of students. In parallel a general tendency of Athenians moving towards the
outskirts of the capital, shifted Exárchia’s character to a more mixed and less residential kind of
area. Many of the old residents while moving their residence to the outskirts of the city still
retained property in Exárchia which they developed into multi-storey polykatoikía buildings,
through the antiparochí mechanism, allowing them to retain ownership of spaces in the new
buildings, eventually for professional or commercial uses while selling or renting out the rest
(Adami, 2008; Zatz, 1983). This is the period when the area witnessed its most radical
transformation in terms of its built environment and the composition of its population; most of
the current landscape of Exárchia dates from those years. The now omnipresent polykatoikía
gradually became the norm, replacing the majority of neoclassical and other types of low-rise
housing.
The Place of Resistance
Throughout most of its history, Exárchia has been marked by some of the most powerful and
pivotal events in the socio-political landscape of modern Greece, as a nucleus of popular
resistance, confrontation and political struggle. It was in this area, “in a small house towards the
end of Ippokratous street”, that on the 27
th
of September 1941, a few months after the Axis
Occupation of Athens, EAM, the main movement of popular resistance in occupied Greece, was
founded (Chatzis, 1982, p.155, my translation), arguably the first true mass social movement in
modern Greek history (Mazower, 1993; Eudes, 1972). During the Occupation, Exárchia
becomes a host and a stage of civil protest; on multiple occasions Athenians rally, rarely
bloodlessly, against the arrests and tortures, against the regime of terror, against civil
mobilisation, for better food ratios, for liberty (Cherouveim, 2008; Mazower, 1993, pp.108-122).
In one of those rallies, a high-school student is killed; those familiar with the events of
December 2008 in Exárchia will read in this a painful precedent.
In 1944, during the Civil War which followed liberation, soon after the massacre of the 3
rd
of
December, urban warfare between EAM and the Royalists supported by the British ‘forces of
neutrality’ erupts in every district of central Athens. Still, it is in Exárchia that the most dramatic
events take place; “heroic battles occur in every building, almost in the whole of Exárchia… it is
there where among others, Yiánnis Xenákis is wounded when British troops fire with machine
guns towards the building on Chariláou Trikoúpi and Navarínou” (Cherouveim, 2008, my
translation). It is there where the student division of ELAS (the armed wing of EAM) has its

18
headquarters, in the 5
th
Dimotikó Scholeío (primary school) of Exárchia, while fighting from
within the Architecture School of the Polytechnic (Cherouveim, 2008).
A few decades later Exárchia becomes a battleground once again. On the 17
th
of November
1973, forces of the military raid the Polytechnic, at the time occupied by students in protest
against the dictatorship, killing around 40 civilians; it was the beginning of the end for the
military junta. Ever since, Exárchia has accommodated progressive to radical political activity
and ideology, or as Cherouveim writes, it has “hosted the action of what is at the same time the
most restless, progressive and popular part of the Greek society” (Cherouveim, 2008).
Less than a year ago, “three gunshots and a dead 15-year old boy were to trigger the most
severe acts of civil unrest the country has seen in its entire post-dictatorial era (1974-)” (Vradis,
2009). A demonstration turned sour and from Exárchia it spread to almost every urban centre
across Greece, with protests and rallies in Greek embassies and consulates across the world. It
triggered an unprecedented chain reaction for a much larger revolt against the state of society
at large; banks, high-street shops, institutions representing the state, power and the neo-liberal
order, became the targets of attack in a wave of rage that lasted almost one month.
Exárchia Today
In terms of its built environment, Exárchia is today characterised most prominently by the
typology of the polykatoikía (fig. 2), the dense and high, mixed-use building; in concrete and
often standing on a stoá (fig. 3); it often houses commercial shops, cafes, bars or restaurants on
street level and residences, offices or other service-based business on higher levels. To a
lesser extent, some earlier neoclassical buildings still stand, either functioning as residences or
often being converted to commercial and recreational uses. Building blocks occupy relatively
small and often rectangular footprints inside a corresponding rectilinear network of
interconnected streets. The landmark triangular square remains one of the popular destinations
in Athens, while Strefis Hill provides the area with one of the rare green open spaces in the
densely urbanised capital. Lastly, the pedestrianised streets with their relaxing atmosphere of
bars, cafes, restaurants or open markets contrast sharply with the busy main roads traversing
the area.
Recently, Exárchia is being increasingly mediatised as a place prone to a set of ‘provocative’
behaviours to ‘respectable’ middle-class values, ranging from alternative dress codes to drug
abuse to ‘terrorist’ activity. About two years ago, through this latter sensational rhetoric, a public
order minister acknowledged it was ‘too dangerous’ to send officers into the area which has
defied decades of attempts by socialist and conservative governments alike to bring it ‘under
control’. While it is certainly true that the area has repeatedly acted as an urban stage for
challenging authority, fundamentally, and beyond its mediated representations, Exárchia has
been one of the few places in central Athens to retain a strong feeling of community interrelated

19
to an intense heterogeneity in terms of its social diversity and multi-functional character
(Portaliou, 2008).
figure 2 (top) - residential polykatoikías along a street in Exárchia, a neoclassical building type on the left.
figure 3 (bottom) - a stoá on the street level of the polykatoikías on Asklipioú, in Exárchia.
This is in no way a dreamy paradise, in fact while in the area, one is confronted to the multitude
of facets of ‘untidy’ Athens, not necessarily exclusive to this area; drug abuse and trafficking,

20
prostitution, the daily and often provocative presence of special police forces ready to combat
‘the anarchists’ (though apparently reluctant to take action against drug dealers and pimps), and
sporadic acts of unrest by enraged youth often unjustified. Still, it is in Exárchia that various
social solidarity activities directly confronting these problems take place, ranging from immigrant
support centres to the antiexousiastikó kínima (a movement with a long tradition in Athens and
Greece, translating this as ‘movement against power’ can only catch part of its essence but is a
logical one nonetheless), and from participatory politics to neighbourhood social action groups
(Tzanavara 2008, Gallera 2008).
Beyond the two visions of ‘the ghetto’ and ‘the cradle of the social movement’, Exárchia “was
and still remains a low- and middle-class neighbourhood, as densely built and populated as
others of Athens… with the middle-classes rather on the increase now than 30-40 years ago
(Kampylis, 2008). An area traditionally composed of a heterogeneous population with equally
heterogeneous activities keeping the area well animated for most of its days and nights. “It’s
probably one of the few areas of Athens having all the characteristics of a true neighbourhood
community” outlines a resident of the area, before starting to number out, grocery shops, mini-
markets, butchers, bakeries, cafes, traditional tavérnas, cafes and bars that fill the area with life
(Tzanavara 2008, my translation).

21
Methodology
No two cities are the same, and parts within them tend rather to contrast and complement than
merely replicate one-another; a process in which their spaces acquire a multitude of self-
defining features. The methodology aims to describe, analyse, and compare, some of these; to
comprehend how is this spatial character constituted in Exárchia in Athens. Through a common
analytical frame, two additional areas of central Athens, neighbouring Exárchia, are examined in
order to enable comparative readings and interpretations; to establish, in fact, whether the
spatial is indeed special.
The areas selected for comparison are Kolonáki and Viktória (fig. 4 & 5). They neighbour
Exárchia to the south-east and north-west respectively, are of a similar urban scale as to their
size, while, like Exárchia, they are located at equal distances to the academic axis and the city
centre of Athens. Despite their spatial proximity and equal scale, they present a distinguishable
spatial character, a markedly different social and cultural nature and they each occupy a distinct
place in the urban imagery of Athenians. For these reasons, this double comparison of
‘contrastive equals’, appears particularly fitting to this research.
A set of methodologies was employed in order to unravel each area’s ‘sense of place’ and
construct a basis for analytical interpretation. Different methods inform and complement one
another; a strategy for on-site observations was devised in order to read through the areas built
environment and describe its architectural and urban morphology, its spatial use and street
activity, a specific mapping technique and notation was used to produce the ‘script’ of these
observations, while a small scale social survey conducted through individual interviews brought
a vital element of local knowledge into the analysis.
Contrastive Equals
Kolonáki
Kolonáki is traditionally thought of as the place of choice for the Athenian upper-bourgeoisie.
This is reflected onto its highly concentrated shops selling luxury items ranging from jewellery
and haute couture to fine art and designer furniture. At close proximity to the house of
parliament and government ministries, it is an area where many state embassies and cultural
institutions, including L’ Institut Français and the British Council, are located, as well as the
Nomiki, the Law School of Athens, lying on its south-western edge, on Akadimías boulevard. A
mixture of bars, cafes and restaurants provide for a varied, though rather exclusive, range of

22
nightlife and animate the area’s most central parts. Kolonáki borders Exárchia to the north-west,
in a slightly blurry manner, or rather, it seems that in the absence of a sharp physical
delimitation users of the two areas define them with regards to the spread of their activities in
each one, positioning it anywhere between Asklipioú and Dimókritou. Kolonáki borders the city
centre, south of Akadimías and Vasilísis Sofías avenues, while to the north Lycavitos Hill is a
natural geographical boundary. It stretches east roughly untill Mégaro Mousikís, the Athens
Concert Hall.
figure 4 - the district of Kolonáki in Athens, aerial view.
Landmark streets of the area, include the tree-lined Patriárchou Ioakím, Skoufá, somewhat
more metropolitan in character, and Voukourestíou, its name synonymous to high-end fashion
designers. Polykatoikía types of buildings align most of its streets while the two main squares,
Platía Thexamenís and the homonymous Platía Kolonakíou provide the area with a vital amount
of open space, regrouping around them a variety of activities for locals and visitors. Towards the
hill of Lycavitos, climbing sets of steps in-between residential building blocks render these areas
of Páno Kolonáki, (páno meaning upper), a more secluded feel; built underneath the slopes of
the pine-planted hill, they enjoy some rare qualities of tranquillity, green space and clean, if not
less-polluted air, as well as some of the highest rents and land values in the capital.
Viktória
On the other hand, Viktória would by no means pretend to the haughtiness of Kolonáki. A
working and middle-class district of central Athens, it is a place where its pre-1990s residents,
somewhat disenchantingly, remark on the signs of a gradual but intense transformation of its
human geography. The first encounters of uninitiated Viktória to an increasing number of recent

23
immigrants, combined with a steady exodus of the middle-classes from the centre to the
suburbs during the last two decades, are to many a less than romantic affair. A mixture of ethnic
convenience and grocery shops, among a high number of money-transfer and international
‘phone-booth’ outlets, as well as the unfamiliarly low frequency of hearing Greek along the main
street of Aristotélous strongly announce the presence of Viktória’s multiethnic community.
ASOE, the School of Social Sciences, and Polytechnío, the Technical University of Athens, both
lie on its eastern edge, along Patision and Akadimías boulevards respectively.
figure 5 - the district of Viktória in Athens, aerial view.
Viktória is particularly well-served by public transport, privileged with an elektrikós urban rail
station since 1948, being close to the major bus and metro hub of Omónia square and to one of
the main railway stations of Athens, Stathmós Larísis, to its south and west respectively. The
main square, Platía Viktórias, is a continuous hub of activity; being in-between the principal
streets of Aristotélous and Trítis Septemvríou and the access point for the elektrikós. Its users
alter between street sellers and groups of immigrants enjoying its central public spaces, and
Greeks who seem to traverse it merely to get to the station or otherwise prefer the immediate
spaces of consumption, cafes, bars and restaurants, around it. In contrast to Kolonáki, Victoria
is a rather flat low-basin of Athens, while except for the main square, open and green spaces
are almost completely lacking among its polykatoikías which here as in all the three areas of
study, constitute the main building typology. Viktória’s borders are the most clearly defined of all
three areas; sharing the border of Patisíon to the west with Exárchia, it stretches along
Aristotélous from Márni to the south till Ayíou Meletíou to the north, and is contained by
Acharnón to the west .

24
Reseach Methods
On-site Observations
The purpose of on-site observations was to analytically describe each of the three areas’ spatial
morphology, typology, and the activities and uses of space. The objects of observation, were
individual buildings and open spaces. A set of routes was selected through each area where
every building and open space along the routes was individually observed.
Two types of routes were defined: edge to edge routes and block routes. Edge to edge routes
were selected based on the following criteria: a) connecting two distant edges of an area, b)
creating a continuous open-ended sequence of principal streets, relatively central to the area
and c) passing by an area’s square. Block routes were selected based on: a) creating a
continuous and looping street sequence circumscribing a single building block, b) located at a
minimum of one block away at all sides from both the area’s edges and the area’s edge to edge
route and c) evenly dispersed within the area.
Three edge to edge routes were selected, each passing by 163, 181, and 154 buildings and
open spaces, in Kolonáki, Exárchia, and Viktória respectively, totalling 4637m of route length.
Additionally seven block routes were selected, two in Kolonáki, two in Viktória, and three in
Exárchia, of 67, 81, and 75 buildings and open spaces respectively, totalling 1913m of route
length.
Selecting and employing two different route types, aimed towards a consistent and
comprehensive description of each one of the three study areas; while edge to edge routes,
composed of principal streets, aim to describe the relatively more global space, block routes,
relatively peripheral, aim at describing the more local space. Lastly, even though all three areas
had already been selected as of a similar urban scale, route selection enabled for differences
among the size of the areas to be further considered; differences in both the edge to edge route
and the combined block route lengths among the three areas relate to their different sizes.
Overall, a total of 697 buildings and 24 open spaces were observed on-site, situated along the
sides of routes of a combined length of 6550m. Observations were carried out between June
19th and July 8th, 2009.
Mapping
Based on the data collected through the on-site observations a series of maps have been
produced where these can be understood in a comprehensive and systematic way. The map
legend (fig. 6) presents the system of notation used. Analysed features were grouped into the

25
following categories: street, interface, building external use, building internal use, building
dimensions, and open spaces.
figure 6 - system of notation used for transcribing on-site observations into maps.

26
The interface is defined here as the ‘anchorage’ of the building to its environment; the physical
materialisation of the transition between the building-proper and, in this case, the street. This is
described in terms of the presence or not of any of the three following typologies: a) the stoá;
the public semi-enclosed space situated at street level and formed by the set-back street-level
external wall of the building at one side and a series of columns separating it from the street-
proper on the other, covered on top by the building’s first floor slab, b) the front yard, the private
open space between the building-proper and its physical boundary to the street, and c) the
semi-basement, the private space of the building-proper, adjacent to the street but situated half
a storey lower than the level of the street. Further, the interface is described in terms of the
presence or not of a major entrance or of a minor entrance; a major entrance is an entrance
primarily and most frequently used to access the inside spaces of a building whereas a minor
entrance is one used infrequently either as an emergency exit or as a service access.
The building external use is defined as the activities housed in the space of the building for
which no access through either a major entrance nor a minor entrance is necessary (e.g. they
are publicly accessible at street level). These are always marked as major activity unless the
activity is deemed to be substantially less active, as in the cases of a shop to rent, a stockhouse
or warehouse, a parking, etc. Activities are further differentiated with regard to the time period in
which they operate as day, for activities that operate mainly during office and shopping hours,
night, for activities operating mainly in the evening and night hours, and flexible, for those
operating on a flexible timeframe during a 24h cycle (e.g. many press kiosks or small
neighbourhood shops).
The building internal use is defined as the use of the space of the building for which access
through either a major entrance or a minor entrance is necessary (e.g. the levels above the
ground floor). This is marked either as residence and offices, residence only, offices only, same
as external use, special use, and off-use. Same as external use signifies that the use of a
building’s internal space is by and for an activity which is occurring both sides of the buildings,
marked equally in the building external use (e.g. a restaurant in a reconverted neoclassical two-
storey building functioning both inside and onto the street level outside of the building-proper,
the latter having no other use). Special use signifies a building that solely houses civil or
religious institutions or a building of a thoroughly distinct use (e.g. a university, a church, a multi-
storey parking building). Off-use is used to describe buildings that are either abandoned, have
no apparent use, are repaired or are actually being built. For the off-use buildings interface
notation has been omitted, on the basis that the interface while being a physical materialisation
implies that human interaction, as this is defined here by a building’s use and activity, is taking
place through it.
Open spaces are marked as either private space or public space. Private space signifies a
space physically open, unbuilt, having a relatively specific function where an activity other than
the one specifically prescribed may not be legal and where public access is controlled or
forbidden (e.g. an empty plot to be built, owned by an individual, a controlled parking space).
Public space signifies a space physically open, unbuilt, having a relatively not specific function

27
where a multitude of activities may occur freely and not considered as illegal and where public
access is controlled or free (e.g. a park, a square).
As for the street itself, buildings have been grouped into continuous building block frontages,
while frontage discontinuities such as gaps and angles are marked in the corresponding
notation. Pedestrianised streets are also marked. Last, the building dimensions describe the
relative façade width and the number of levels above ground.
Social Survey
A small-scale social survey was conducted in parallel to the observations during the same time
period, aimed at examining the ways in which people use space in each of the three areas. The
survey consisted of individual interviews based on a common questionnaire, formulated in the
Greek language. This was composed of eight sections to be completed by the participants,
complemented by information regarding geographic definition of the areas of study and a
statement identifying the researcher, their institution, and the nature of the survey as
anonymous, of academic and non-commercial purposes. A sample of the questionnaire and its
English translation are appended.
In the first four sections (A, B, C, D) informants where asked their gender, age, occupational
station and sector of occupation. Section five (E) asked whether the informant is or was
studying or working in any of the higher education institutions in or near Exárchia, and the
duration of academic related activity or the absence from it. In section six (F), informants were
asked to choose among five characterisations of Exárchia, the one reflecting their view on the
area in terms of prosperity.
For sections seven and eight (G, H), six geographical areas were defined, including the three
areas of the study plus three concentric ‘ring’ area subdivisions of Attica; the City of Athens
excluding Exárchia, Kolonáki and Viktória, the Attica Plain excluding the City of Athens, and
Attica excluding the Attica Plain. In section seven (G), informants were asked to locate their
current place of residence and the immediately previous one, among the six defined areas, and
the duration of their stay and absence respectively. Section eight (H) asked informants the
frequency of their activities in each of the six defined areas for the last twelve months; nine
categories of activities were defined, such as “work”, “shopping”, “going out”, while frequency
values ranged from “daily” to “several times a year”.
In including the three Attica subdivisions, the survey aimed to examine and compare the supra-
local functioning of each of the three areas. Thus, these could be compared not only as
separate units as to their activities, but also as to the degree to which they attract people not
resident in the areas, and the geographic spread of this attraction. In other words, the aim was
not to examine static units but interacting components, as is the case in urban systems.

28
Informants where selected randomly among people present in the three areas of study as well
as among people in central locations of central Athens, such as the squares at Syntagma and
Monastiráki. While the main object of the survey was the frequency of activities, several
questions functioned, and where particularly formulated, as control questions; information such
as place of residence and duration, place of work, university ties, kinship, age and occupation
were used to adjust a relatively limited sample against specific factors and thus obtain less
biased results. A total of 60 individual interviews were conducted during different times of the
day, and different days of the week. All interviews and questionnaire data have been treated
anonymously.

29
Maps of a Spatial Genome
The maps in this chapter, based on the system of notation defined in the methodology, describe
how routes through the three areas of study (fig. 7 & 8) are instrumentalised; based on façade
observations along a rather structured flânerie, they form the transcript of what lies behind and
before these façades, a ‘spatial genome’ of primary uses, street life, and interface. Both sides of
the route are simultaneously graphed, as two parallel ‘alleles’. These are analysed in the
following chapter. Every set of routes is preceded by an aerial view of the area where these are
marked and their segments referenced.
figure 7 (top) - the three areas of study in central Athens.
figure 8 (bottom) - location in Attica Plain, Athens - Piraeus metropolitan region.

30
Exárchia
figure 9 - Exárchia, edge to edge route (B1 - B4), and block routes (Ba, Bb, Bc).

37
Kolonáki
figure 10 - Kolonáki, edge to edge route (A1 - A4), and block routes (Aa, Ab).

43
Viktória
figure 11 - Viktória, edge to edge route (C1 - C4), and block routes (Ca, Cb).

49
Analysis
The analysis is organised in two sections. The first can be viewed as the analysis of spatial
structure; it regroups the examination of elements such as street level interface, block sizes,
connectivity of the street grid, and differentiation of building by type and height. The second one
examines how this very spatial structure is used, in terms of the kind of the general use of its
buildings, the transience of operation of its activities, and the frequency with which people
engage in them. Spatial structure analysis is informed through the information collected through
the on-site observations and their subsequent mapping, while spatial use combines information
collected through the social survey and during the on-site observations.
Spatial Structure
Stoá and Public Interface
Looking at the ‘spatial genome’ maps of the areas, the difference in terms of the constitution of
the interface in Exárchia appears quite clear. The presence of the stoá typology stands out as
the single most important characteristic that differentiates the area’s street-building interface
both from Kolonáki, and Viktória. It is the case not only in the edge to edge routes but in the
block routes as well even if to a limited degree. Notably, it is also evident that in the absence of
stoá, this is replaced by pedestrianised streets.
Two measures were devised in order to examine this particular trait in detail; a stoá per building
measure expressing the likelihood of any building, off-use buildings exempted, to incorporate a
stoá typology in its interface, and a stoá buildings per 400m of route, expressing the possible
number of buildings with a stoá within a 400m length of route (table 1). The 400m route length
unit used hereafter was chosen as the average distance of a 5min walk.
Further, a more comprehensive public interface can be described if apart from the stoá, public
open spaces and pedestrianised streets are included. This is examined through an additional
measure as public interface per 400m. It aims to express the presence of public interface in
each of the areas, as this is structured in terms of stoá, pedestrianised street and public open
space. It represents the possible number of buildings and open spaces incorporating an
element of public interface in a 400m route.
Along the edge to edge routes, with a probable occurrence of a stoá in any building, in fact
higher than a probable absence of one, Exárchia’s major streets are defined by them. Viktória

50
completely lacks this type of interface in any of the buildings studied in all routes, while in
Kolonáki it is only on the edge to edge routes that stoá is present, still more than four times less
frequent in a 400m route than in Exárchia, and completely absent in the block routes.
Interestingly, the one segment of the routes in Kolonáki where the stoá becomes more frequent
is the one closest to Exárchia (route segment A1-A2), Skoufá, and at the same time the street
where users of the areas’ would argue over the Exárchia/Kolonáki border.
It is important to note that the three types of elements that can be agued to be public, the stoá,
the public open spaces and the pedestrianised streets, do not accumulate in any case of the
study; any one building s or open space s street segment does not contain more than one of
these types on the same length of route, stoá is not found in front of a public open space and
pedestrianised streets have no stoá buildings along them. When these public interface elements
are included in the measurement, the differences become yet more amplified.
stoá
per building (max=1)
stoá buildings
per 400m
public interface
per 400m
edge to edge routes
Kolonáki 0.12 4.94 7.53
Exárchia 0.52 21.38 26.78
Viktória 0 0 0.29
block routes
Kolonáki 0 0 2.67
Exárchia 0.24 10.13 12.94
Viktória 0 0 5.97
all routes combined
Kolonáki 0.09 3.55 6.17
Exárchia 0.44 18.06 22.70
Viktória 0 0 2.00
table 1 - stoá per building, stoá per 400m of route length, public interface per 400m of route length.
The stoá’s function is hardly aesthetic. In fact these do not resemble the arched porticos of
Bologna, but their more Corbusian siblings; public spaces in front of the polykatoikías,
separated from the street by rough concrete columns themselves supporting the higher levels of
the buildings. The critical difference to Corbusier’s pilotis is that these are not “among gardens
in nature” but in a dense urban setting, acquiring different properties due to their interconnected
setting and not as isolated objects. The space they provide is used in a multitude of ways;
coffee shops, bars, restaurants, kiosks, commerce, grocery shops, all of which they shelter from
the dense traffic of central Athens (fig. 12).

51
In combination, pedestrianised streets, public open spaces and stoás can be argued not only to
create a public shell in front of the building, or to provide scattered units of public open space,
but, as they alternate with each other, to weave a public tissue throughout the urban space of
Exárchia.
figure 12 - stoá on Chariláou Trikoúpi, in Exárchia; space for walking, press, clothes, bike-parking, and
socialising between neighbours (there is no coffee shop on the street, the shop-owners have taken their
own table and chairs outside, in public space).
Blocks and Intersections
Building blocks in the centre of Athens are in their great majority continuously built and gaps
between buildings are rarely encountered along their frontage, with multi-storey polykatoikías
competing for its space both in length and in height. However, despite a uniformly dense
appearance, there are significant differences both among the three areas, but also inside each
area itself, between block and edge to edge routes.
The facades of each building block, referred to as frontages in this study, have been measured
in two separate ways; in their actual length and in the number of buildings they contain (table 2).
Additionally, the number of intersections has been calculated for every route. Frontages that
solely contain open space were excluded from the first two measurements.

52
There are two significant findings from this set of data. Firstly, in Exárchia frontages are smaller
both in their actual length and in the number of buildings they contain. At the same time the
ratios of frontage lengths between different areas are virtually equal to the ratios of buildings per
frontage, pointing out that while individual buildings occupy on average the same length of
frontage, these are contained in larger groups in Kolonáki and Viktória than in Exárchia.
Secondly the differentiation within the area’s edge to edge routes to block routes with regard to
frontage size, while being quite amplified in Exárchia, remains relatively stable in the other two.
frontage length
(metres)
buildings
per frontage
intersections
per 400m
edge to edge routes
Kolonáki 67.7 4.03 9.6
Exárchia 59.5 3.50 12.0
Viktória 69.6 4.17 10.0
block routes
Kolonáki 67.8 4.19 10.7
Exárchia 49.2 2.96 14.1
Viktória 65.4 4.35 8.0
all routes combined
Kolonáki 67.7 4.07 10.0
Exárchia 56.1 3.32 12.6
Viktória 68.3 4.23 9.41
table 2 - frontage length, buildings per frontage, intersections per 400m.
When measuring intersections per 400m of route length a similar trend is observed with
Exárchia’s routes having a higher number of intersections than both Kolonáki and Viktória. To a
degree this can be expected as of a result of smaller frontages, however when focusing inside
the same area and comparing edge to edge routes to block routes, a different picture emerges.
While block routes in Exárchia remain more differentiated than edge to edge routes, presenting
a higher number of intersections and the routes in Kolonáki differ a bit less markedly, in Viktória
the inverse is observed with block routes being actually less intersected than edge to edge
routes.
These findings point towards a different pattern in the fragmentation of space for each of the
three areas. For Kolonáki this pattern is one of relatively large block sizes throughout its area,
with local areas slightly more intersected than global ones. In neighbouring Exárchia block sizes
are the smallest among the three areas, with local areas presenting the highest increase in the
number of intersections from global ones, as well as the highest decrease in block size. Lastly
in Viktória, while block sizes are similar to Kolonáki throughout the area, the local areas appear
less intersected than the global ones, contrasting both Kolonaki and Exárchia.

53
Heights and Lows
Despite the frenetic post-war construction boom and the near-universal spread of the
polykatoikía type which accompanied Athens’ rite of passage from a city of hundreds of
thousands to a metropolis of millions, there are still scattered signs of a bygone low-rise era.
Somewhat awkwardly, next to their big neighbours, still remain a few pre-war neoclassical and
other low-rise buildings. Moreover, as the polykatoikía itself evolved, it diversified into distinct
types suited to different uses. This section aims to examine how this diversity is manifested in
each of the three areas of study with regard to the coexistence of buildings of different heights
and different type of use in the same block.
Table 3 presents along with average building height, the average height difference between the
highest and the lowest building within the same frontage; values represent the difference in
number of storeys. Considering earlier findings regarding block size with in terms of buildings
per frontage, a block-to-group factor was used to adjust the original values for comparison
between frontages of an equal number of buildings.
Concerning the edge to edge routes, even before adjusting the values, Exárchia has at the
same time the greatest height differences among buildings in the same frontage and the lowest
average building height. On the other hand, Kolonáki appears as the most undifferentiated area
both within the frontages as well as regarding average heights between global and local areas.
Interestingly, Viktoria follows a pattern similar as the one observed for intersections; in contrast
to Exárchia and Kolonáki it is in the block routes that building heights differ the greatest.
in-block height
differentiation
(adjusted for comparison)
in-group height
differentiation
average building
height
edge to edge routes
Kolonáki 1.85 1.79 5.8
Exárchia 3.20 3.56 5.4
Viktória 2.42 2.26 6.4
block routes
Kolonáki 2.13 1.95 5.9
Exárchia 1.96 2.54 4.8
Viktória 3.53 3.11 5.1
all routes combined
Kolonáki 1.93 1.83 5.8
Exárchia 2.79 3.25 5.2
Viktória 2.77 2.54 5.9
table 3 - in-block height differentiation, adjusted in-group values for comparison of groups of an equal
number of buildings, average building height.

54
The interaction of block sizes, overall average heights, and in-block height differentiation is
complex. For example, a smaller size of block in terms of the number of buildings it contains,
has inherently fewer possibilities for height differentiation, while the same absolute height
differentiation has a greater impact when average heights are lower; while the difference
between an eight storey building and a six storey building might even pass unnoticed to a street
level walker, an equal difference between a one storey building and a three-storey building will
not have the same effect. A two-storey pre-war neoclassical house type in Exárchia next to a
neighbouring four-storey polykatoikía, is not only a sharper contrast than two polykatoikías of
four- and six- storeys respectively, but equally juxtapose different kind of uses and users of
space.
Types and Uses
Apart from building height, building morphology may be differentiated as to a building’s internal
use. The diversity of types within the same block in terms of building internal use is described
by the in-block type differentiation. The values express an average for how many different types
of buildings are present within a block in each area. In the same way as for height differentiation
measures, an adjusted set of values for in-group type differentiation is used to compare
differentiation among groups of an equal number of buildings (table 4).
in-block type differentiation
in-group type differentiation
edge to edge routes
Kolonáki 1.97 1.91
Exárchia 2.22 2.47
Viktória 2.03 1.90
block routes
Kolonáki 1.94 1.77
Exárchia 1.76 2.28
Viktória 2.12 1.86
all routes combined
Kolonáki 1.96 1.87
Exárchia 2.07 2.29
Viktória 2.06 1.89
table 4 - in-block type differentiation, adjusted in-group values for comparison of groups of an equal
number of buildings.
All six building types have been included, as these are defined for the mapping; residence and
offices, residence, offices, off-use, special use, same as external. It would initially appear that

55
residence and offices is in itself not a separate type but one that includes two others. However,
it has been observed, that while this is indeed used both for residence and for offices, this does
not necessarily imply that a residence and offices building shelters a similar residential use and
users as a residence-only building, and equally, many activities that are housed in an office-only
building would not occur in a residence and offices building.
Reading the original values, it is consistent with earlier data that the trend for ‘small but different’
is reinforced in Exárchia. Concerning edge to edge routes and all routes combined, despite an
inherent disadvantage due to frontage size, Exárchia still manages to contain an equal or
slightly higher number of building types than a larger block in Kolonáki or Viktória. The same is
not the case for block routes, where it contains fewer types per frontage, this is in part explained
by the smaller size of the blocks; in block routes Viktoria might appear to have the most different
types of buildings however it does have the largest blocks as well. When the values are
adjusted for comparison, it becomes clear that for groups of an equal number of buildings, in
Kolonáki and Viktória the mix of types is always less than Exárchia.
Perhaps Exárchia is not the showcase of 19
th
century classicism much beloved by many well-
published architectural histories. Yet, it narrates a mostly undocumented story of the silent and
rather disregarded aspects of popular individual initiative in the transformation of the built
environment of modern Athens through its variety of types and styles that accommodate a
diverse number of uses (fig. 13). It is the latter that is examined more thoroughly in the following
section of the analysis.
figure 13 - juxtapositions of different types, narration of different eras.

56
Spatial Use
Spatial Use Capacity
Building height and type combined allow for a varying capacity to which space is used for
different purposes. A comparison of the ratios of spatial capacity of each use examines how the
three different areas balance and manage the uses of their architectural and spatial
infrastructure. Spatial capacity, for each use in each set of routes, has been calculated as the
total number of levels of all buildings for the particular type of use, excluding the street level of
the building when this is used for any major-only external uses, and adding an extra level for the
as external buildings, where internal and external use of the building are unified and occurring
both inside the building as well as on street level. Table 5 presents the ratios of each of the six
different uses for each area’s set of routes, and table 6 the average deviation of each use to the
average, for the first three major uses, and for all uses.
residence
and offices residence offices
as
external off-use
special
use
edge to edge routes
Kolonáki 50.4 37.0 6.0 4.3 0.0 2.4
Exárchia 36.6 37.8 16.7 6.1 2.8 0.0
Viktória 37.9 50.5 9.5 0.0 0.9 1.3
block routes
Kolonáki 53.7 38.8 6.8 0.0 0.8 0.0
Exárchia 21.5 57.0 18.7 1.6 1.3 0.0
Viktória 35.8 49.4 9.6 3.2 2.0 0.0
all routes combined
Kolonáki 51.4 37.5 6.2 3.0 0.3 1.6
Exárchia 32.5 43.1 17.2 4.9 2.3 0.0
Viktória 37.3 50.2 9.5 0.9 1.3 0.9
table 5 - shares of internal use capacity for each use to total capacity for all buildings combined (%).
For Exárchia these figures mean that the area is at the same time the most balanced area, in
terms of more equal shares of use but also an area that presents the highest differentiation
within its local and global spaces, as these are represented by the block routes and the edge
routes respectively. Should we look at the figures for residence, Kolonáki sustains a 37 per cent
ratio in the edge to edge routes and a 38.8 per cent for block routes, Viktória a 50.5 and a 49.4
per cent respectively, whereas in Exárchia the ratios of residence type of use capacity range
from 37.8 per cent to 57 per cent; a 20 per cent increase from global to local. Looking at the

57
average deviation values, Exárchia is slightly less balanced than Viktória concerning the block
routes for the three major uses, while the overall trend for all uses and the rest of the route sets
for the three major ones, is a a more limited deviation from average ratios.
major uses
average deviation
all uses
average deviation
edge to edge route
Kolonáki 16.8 18.0
Exárchia 9.1 13.7
Viktória 15.4 18.3
block routes
Kolonáki 17.5 19.7
Exárchia 16.4 15.7
Viktória 14.7 17.3
all routes combined
Kolonáki 17.0 18.5
Exárchia 9.1 14.3
Viktória 15.2 18.0
table 6 - average deviation of spatial use capacities for the three major uses, and for all uses (%).
These findings are consistent with earlier findings regarding type differentiation, where again
Viktória presents slightly more mixed blocks in terms of different types for the block routes,
whereas overall, Exárchia contains more different types per frontage and even more after
adjusting for groups of an equal number of buildings.
Rationing Spatial Use
Spatial use shares, reflect the global distribution of spatial use capacities. However a balanced
global distribution does not necessarily mean equally balanced blocks. As block sizes are
relatively small in Exárchia, the possibilities for uneven distribution of capacities among them
are higher. In order to examine how this aspect of spatial use functions in each of the areas the
statistical measure of variance was used. In probability theory and statistics, the variance of a
random variable is a measure of statistical dispersion; a way to capture its scale or degree of
being spread out.
Each frontage has been assigned a value in terms of its spatial capacity for each use separately
(the total number of levels of use), and the values have then been analysed for variance (table
7). Should we assume, for a single type of use, that all frontages have an equal capacity, then
the variance value should be zero, while as values increase they reflect differentiation of

58
frontages to each other in terms of difference in capacity. In short, the more a spatial use is
evenly spread among blocks the lower the variance value.
residence
and offices residence offices
as
external off-use
special
use
edge to edge routes
Kolonáki 99.9 81.3 6.5 5.9 0.0 2.7
Exárchia 26.4 37.0 14.9 4.5 2.1 0.0
Viktória 64.0 87.4 17.3 0.0 0.6 2.3
block routes
Kolonáki 102.8 62.4 7.2 6.0 0.5 0.0
Exárchia 19.0 44 8.16 0.5 0.3 0.0
Viktória 81.4 57.6 10.9 4.1 0.9 0.0
all routes combined
Kolonáki 99.7 74.9 6.6 4.4 1.6 1.9
Exárchia 26.3 38.9 12.6 3.3 1.5 0.0
Viktória 68.9 77.4 15.3 1.3 0.7 1.6
table 7 - variance of spatial use capacity among blocks, (0 = all blocks equal capacity).
But only in short. Considering these values separately we risk evaluating distribution of uses
completely unconnected to their global presence in the area; for example in the case of special
use, low values do indeed represent its equal spread, but this is an equally spread absence of
use. To address this issue and enable comparisons, variance values have been scattered
against their respective levels of use capacity (fig. 14). The values on the x-axis represent
variance while y-axis values represent capacity in number of levels, in the second graph
variance values are compared to their average.
These two graphs offer a synthetic picture of the distribution of uses among blocks in the three
areas in relation to their overall presence. In the first graph as values spread along the x-axis
the more unevenly the capacity of a use is distributed among block frontages. For all three
areas, it is observed that block routes are the ones where uses vary most greatly followed by
the edge to edge to edge routes and the combined routes. Further in every set of routes
Exárchia presents the most limited dispersion of spatial use. Critically should we examine the
overall spread of all uses, Exárchia presents a consistently marked difference to Kolonáki and
Exárchia, with use capacities being more evenly spread than both.

59
figure 14 - distribution of spatial use; variance of spatial use capacity among blocks against total spatial
use capacity in number of levels.(top graph) and deviation of variance values from their three-area average
(bottom graph), y-axis: levels of capacity, x-axis: (levels of capacity)2
.

60
This finding is particularly important, as it hints towards not merely a difference in individual
block composition but towards a different overall pattern in the management of spatial use
capacity; suggesting a difference in the very process of space appropriation. The different
functioning of this mechanism is more clearly portrayed in the second graph, when each set of
capacity values are compared to their average. As uses increase in capacity, in Viktoria and
Kolonaki these tend to a relatively uneven distribution among different blocks. In Exárchia
however this is significantly constrained and a more even distribution among less differentiated
blocks is observed. Thus, consistent with earlier findings regarding height and type
differentiation, it is reasonable to expect a much greater variety of uses within the same block in
Exárchia. Crucially, despite the theoretically valid assumption that building groups of a larger
size would be more differentiated, findings suggest for the three areas of study the opposite is
actually the case.
Street Transience
As observed and documented in the maps, street-level activity is overall densely present along
most of the routes and at the same time almost always different to the general building’s use,
the few exceptions being the relatively sparse as external type of buildings. The activities taking
place from “zero to five meters off the ground” have a major role in keeping Athens animated. In
this study they are analysed into groups of day and night activities, as well as flexible, for those
operating respectively till 8pm, from then on and into the night, and in a flexible day-night
timeframe (table 8). Additionally the percentage of frontages that contain at least one day and
one night, or flexible activity, has been measured for each area (table 9).
In the daytime, with more than one street activity for every ten metres of route, coexisting in
buildings of distinct internal uses, all three areas reflect the “diffuse multifunctional character of
Greek cities” (Reichen, 2001, p.164). Overall Viktória appears as the most active area in the
daytime, while Exárchia has the greatest number of flexible activities.
Flexibility in time management, and the elaborate ways through which Greek cities manage
their time, in relation to cities of the rather rigid European North, (e.g. a relative absence of a 9-5
culture, different working times for different working groups, summer and winter working times,
mid-day breaks, the working ‘day’ restarting and continuing into the evening), and its role in
keeping the spaces of the city alive (or abolishing the rush hour), is a fascinating subject in its
own right. Yet, this is what in this study can be discussed through the flexible activities
measurements and the flexible blocks measurements.
It is in Exárchia in particular that time-flexible activities are more present, often there are more
than twice as many as in the other areas. When comparing flexible blocks this picture is
sustained, while Viktória appears equally active. Kolonáki, in contrast to both, contains more
night activities in the block routes than the edge to edge routes. While the more local areas of

61
Kolonáki are overall rather quiet, at the same time its more exclusive kind of neighbourhood
restaurants and bars cater for a steady local clientele, and this is reflected in the results.
day activities
per 400m
night activities
per 400m
flexible activities
per 400m
edge to edge routes
Kolonáki 48.6 4.9 2.1
Exárchia 55.9 12.9 10.8
Viktória 60.8 7.7 6.9
block routes
Kolonáki 22.0 6.0 3.4
Exárchia 33.8 5.6 5.1
Viktória 31.2 3.3 2.0
all routes
Kolonáki 41.1 5.2 2.4
Exárchia 49.4 10.8 9.1
Viktória 51.9 6.4 5.4
table 8 - number of day, night, and flexible activities per 400m of route length.
night to day ratio
(max=1) flexible blocks
flexible groups
edge to edge routes
Kolonáki 0.10 29.7 28.8
Exárchia 0.23 56.0 62.4
Viktória 0.13 55.6 52.0
block routes
Kolonáki 0.27 31.3 28.6
Exárchia 0.17 40.0 51.8
Viktória 0.11 23.5 20.7
all routes combined
Kolonáki 0.13 30.2 28.7
Exárchia 0.22 50.7 59.1
Viktória 0.12 45.3 41.5
table 9 - ratio to night to day activities, block frontages with a combination of activities operating day and
night (%), adjusted values for comparison of groups of an equal number of buildings.

62
Lastly and after comparing the night-to-day ratios, it is evident that Viktória is the most animated
area during daytime, has the highest differences both between day and night and between the
activity in its’ edge to edge and block routes. This points out towards a double spatial and
temporal division of activity, and notably, combining block size and intersection results, a
possible relationship of this division to its contrastingly less interconnected local areas.
A critical observation is that the street spaces of Exárchia that are characterised by an
increased flexibility as to the transience of their activity, are the spaces outstandingly defined by
public interface (fig. 15). On the contrary, the most inflexible spaces of Viktória, are the ones
where public interface is virtually extinct. This strongly suggests that the public interface plays a
balancing role; this web of spaces that encourage human interaction, that provide an
intermediate zone in-between intangible urban flux and commodified or domesticated spaces is
more likely to act as a bridge between use and activity otherwise unrelated in time and space.
Moreover, these spaces are not the monumental parks or squares, instead they function at a
micro scale; as a swarm of tiny bits and pieces that work together and which are not the result
of a top-down master plan but an accumulation of individual building elements working in
concert.
figure 15 - a mixture of day, night and flexible activities on Emmanouíl Benáki, in Exárchia; book bindery
on the opposite street, restaurant and grocery store in the stoá of a residential polykatoikía.
Human Complexity

63
It is humbly that this study steps into the territory of social research. In doing so, it aims to move
further from contemplation to comprehension of human complexity at the heart of spatial
systems. Still, results presented here are mere indications and hints based on a limited and not
representative sample, and taken out of context can be neither generalised nor compared
unrelated to each other.
As detailed in the description of the methodology, the social survey was primarily targeted
towards a study of the frequency with which people engage in different activities in space, while
in order to get a less biased result, control questions were used to exclude factors such as
residence, kinship, place of work, or studies in the area. The level of detail is that of a study of
groups of activities and groups of people.
Response rates were slightly higher in Exárchia than the other two areas. In Kolonaki a
somewhat ‘offstandish’ attitude made it difficult to obtain a high number of responses while in
Viktória many locals, often immigrants, would be rather suspicious of participating in the survey
despite assurances over confidentiality and academic objectives. 19 people were interviewed in
Exárchia, 17 in Kolonáki, 16 in Viktória, 4 in S ntagma square and 4 in Monastiráki square.
The sample was composed of 36 women and 24 men; 37 people in their 20s, 13 people in their
30s, 3 in their 40s, 4 in their 50s, 2 in their 60s and one person over 79. Concerning
occupational status, 26 people were regular employees, 13 people were self-employed,
freelancers or occasional workers, 10 were students, 7 were business owners, 2 were
pensioners, and 2 were unemployed.
It is worth noting that in Greece some professions are in principle considered as eléfthera
epaggélmata, “liberal professions” implying self-employment or freelancing, including lawyers
and architects, no mater what the actual occupational status is in practice. People in this
category would at first instance answer “self-employed” or “freelance”, even if they would be
regularly employed in an office. However, following the interview, occupational status has been
corrected if necessary, to reflect the actual status.
The nine categories of activities are grouped here into choice activities, and non-choice
activities. The choice group includes “shopping”, “going out for food or drink”, “arts and cultural
events” and “socio-political activities”, while the non-choice group includes “work”, “professional
activities outside the workplace”, “household shopping”, and “studies”. The intention is to
represent two kind of spatial use, one for which people are relatively free to choose location and
one where this is relatively predetermined. Frequency values were translated into days per year
as 250, 100, 25, 10 for “daily”, “weekly”, “several times a month” and “several times a year”,
respectively. Frequencies for each area were averaged against the number of people who use
the area for at least one activity.
For every group of users, starting from all users and gradually excluding the area’s residents,
workers, students, and those who visit kin and friends, the average frequency of activities in
Exárchia is particularly high (table 10). At the same time, while frequency of non-choice

64
activities when residents are excluded falls in all areas, when students are excluded it remains
stable in Kolonáki, falls in Exárchia and actually increases in Viktória, indicating that a student
frequents Viktoria much less than Exárchia and this despite the two being equidistant from the
academic axis. Excluding kin the same pattern is observed.
Kolonáki Exárchia Viktória
choice activities
all users 51 143 39
non-residents 49 129 29
non-residents
and non-students 49 122 33
non-residents, non-students,
and non-workers 46 98 28
non-residents, non-students
non-workers and not kin 42 81 38
non-choice activities
residents, workers,
or students 150 294 187
table 10 - average frequency for choice and non-choice activities for different groups; days per person per
year.
Overall however, it initially appears that Viktória is the place used as much by its workers,
students, residents and their kin, as by its visitors. Yet, this use is generally low and concerns
choice activities only. A further comparison between choice activities of visitors and non-choice
activities by locals is particularly revealing. Comparing the ratios to their average value, Viktória
appears considerably less frequently used by visitors than by locals, whereas in Kolonáki and
particularly in Exárchia visitors have a relatively high share of use (table 11).
choice to non-choice
in-area ratio
(max=1) 0.31 0.33 0.15
difference
to three-area average (%) + 16 + 26 - 43
table 11 - days of choice activities, by non-residents, non-students, and non-workers, as a fraction of the
days of non-choice activities, by residents, students, or workers, difference of each area to the three-area
average (%).
These findings point towards the different nature of the street level activity analysed earlier on,
and are in fact consistent with the results with regard to spatial capacity. Considering that for all
routes combined Viktória’s spatial capacity is over fifty per cent residence-only, and in the light
of these latest findings, it is not unreasonable to suggest that despite a high level of day
activities these are primarily intended towards the local population. Equally, considering the less

65
residential character of spatial capacity of Exárchia, the frequency results and the high level of
street activity, it’s street life arguably animates a more diverse crowd.
all activities
non-Athens residents 108 295 184
difference
to three-area average (%) - 45 + 51 - 6
table 12 - average frequency for all activities for people not resident in the city of Athens; days per person
per year, difference of each area to the three-area average (%).
Lastly, the supra-local functioning of each area was measured (table 12). Average frequencies
have been calculated for people who reside outside the city of Athens, either in Attica Plain
Lekanopédio Attikís or elsewhere in the Attica prefecture, Nomós Attikís. Exárchia appears
almost three times more frequently used than Kolonáki and significantly more frequently used
than Viktória.
Results should be read with caution, considering the limitations of the survey and the
composition of the sample. Even so, in the light of previous findings, there is reasonable
evidence to suggest that, among the three areas of study, Exárchia is a popular destination for
visitors and a significant supra-local pole of activity.

66
Conclusions
Exárchia and the Structure of Diversity
Assessing the findings of the analysis, it has been demonstrated that Exárchia presents a
number of distinct patterns through which space is structured, appropriated, and animated by its
people and activities. In terms of its spatial structure, Exárchia is characterised most
prominently by public interface and the stoá typology in particular. The formation and
articulation of its grid, is defined by relatively small blocks and multiple intersections, while
individual blocks themselves are composed of a greater variety of building types in terms of
building use and building height. In the light of findings regarding the use of space it is
suggested that this spatial structure is bound with a distinctive pattern of appropriation and use
of space. Exárchia is an area where different uses of space are most balanced, both globally
and at the scale of the individual building block, while its street life is animated through a
mixture of day, night and flexible activities for locals and visitors alike.
Concerning the multi-functionalism of the Greek cities, often claimed to derive from the
‘inherent’ mixed-use typology of the polykatoikía, it is argued that this is neither inherent nor
unrelated to the wider ecology of urban space. While it is certainly true that polykatoikía allows
for multi-functionalism, this is manifested most actively in the presence of public interface, in a
well interconnected grid combing small blocks and a diversity of primary uses in each one of
them.
As for the feel of ‘centre off-centre’, the analysis suggests that this is translated in spatial terms
as well as in terms of street activity. Exárchia is not homogenously structured, instead local
areas are most markedly differentiated from global ones in terms of smaller block sizes,
increased connectivity, and different nature of street activities. Thus this feel of a centre off-
centre corresponds to a distinct spatial pattern. Considering Exárchia’s role as a significant
supra-local pole, as well as the place most animated by a street life for locals and visitors, it
may well be argued that it functions through a strategy of “structured non-correspondence”.
Critically, its portrayal as an impermeable ‘ghetto’ is far from having any substantial credit, on
the contrary this research has demonstrated that it is a prime place for bringing together what is
otherwise apart.
Jacobs in her book commented that to some diversity “looks ugly”, referring to criticisms coming
from advocates of homogeneous mono-functional developments that while being ‘well polished’
lacked both the environmental and the social sustainability of the diverse city Jacobs describes
(1961). In Exárchia some would certainly oppose diversity on the same grounds. However, as
Crawford commented in her criticism of New Urbanism’s “picturesque” ‘communities’, during a
conference in Harvard Graduate School of Design, the built environment is a field shaped by
multiple forces, not least political and social struggles; “and this is not a problem, but one of the
fundamental principles of democracy” (Crawford, 1999).

67
Last Words
Exárchia’s model of ‘small but different’, demonstrated to actively contribute towards diversity,
calls for an integration of these features in planning policy. Spatial elements such as small block
sizes and high connectivity, as well as a city-programming based on an evenly distributed mixed
use can actively support the creation of animated and diverse urban areas.
With a renewed interest towards creating sustainable and diverse communities the findings of
this research have a wider relevance with regard to planning and urban design. As this analysis
has shown, public interface can act as a significant catalyst for diversity, when this is fine-tuned
at the micro-scale of the built environment and resulting from bottom-up initiatives. A revaluation
of the ordinary aspects of popular individual intervention in the city and an encouragement of
those processes that contribute into the creation of public space at the level of the individual
building may be proposed as alternative tools to established practices in planning. This is
particularly relevant considering the dense urban structure of Athens and other major Greek
cities; as the opportunities for centrally planned public open spaces seem severely limited, the
incorporation of public space elements into individual building developments can provide an
effective and feasible solution. Further, the division of space into private and public needs to be
reconsidered through a model where each ‘fragmentary’ public space participates in the whole,
instead of one where spaces are exclusively attributed public or private qualities.
Lastly, this thesis has attempted to combine spatial with socio-cultural understanding by
employing tools apt to examine multiple dimensions of urban space; it shall not pretend it
covered every one, yet it is hoped that a piece of the mosaic, no matter how tiny, has been
placed. Tools of analysis and representation alter our very perception and our interpretation of
space, and the spaces of the city require comprehensive interpretation should we aim to search
for inclusive solutions; a combination of techniques of analysis, even representational, used in
fusion, complementing one another, and illuminating these spaces where each one alone can
only lightly trace, may they be physical, social, cultural, virtual…, is a fundamental condition for
such an ambition.

68
References
Abdelidis K., 2000, ‘ ’ (in Greek: Morphological
features of the Athenian urban tissue), in Th. Maloutas (ed.), μ
; (in Greek: Social and economic atlas of Greece; the cities), EKKE,
Athens.
Adami M., 2007, μ 4: μ ,
(in Greek: Architectural design 4: three residences in Exárchia, history of
the neighbourhood), Technical University of Athens - Architecture School, Athens,
<http://courses.arch.ntua.gr/fsr/118869/SU406-07.pdf>.
Anderson S., 1978, On Streets, MIT Press, Cambridge - Massachusetts.
Biris, 2006, μ (in Greek: Place-names
of the city and suburbs of Athens), Ministry of Culture, Athens.
Bobic M., 2004, Between the Edges; street-building interface as urbanity interface, THOM
Publishers, Bussum.
Castex J., Depaule J.C., Panerai P., 1977, Formes Urbaines; de l’ilot à la Barre, Dunod, Paris
(in French, English edition title: ‘The Life and Death of The Urban Block’).
Chatzis T., 1982, (in Greek: The victorious revolution that
was lost), vol. A, Dorikos, Athes.
Cherouveim V., 2008, ‘ ’ (in Greek: the square of resistance),
GALERA, November 2008, <http://galera.gr/magazine/modules/articles/article.php?id=1437>.
Choay F., 1980, La Règle et le Modèle; sur la théorie de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme (in
French: The rule and the model; on theory of architecture and urbanism), Le Seuil, Paris.
Christiansee K., 2001, ‘The ideal system’, in Simaioforidis Y., Aesopos Y., (eds.),
/ The Contemporary Greek City, Metapolis Press, Athens.
Claessens F., 2005, ‘Mapping urban and social space: towards a socio-cultural understanding
of the build environment’, paper presented to the international conference ‘Doing, thinking,
feeling home: the mental geography of residential environments’, OTB Research Institute, TU
Delft, 14-15 October 2005, <http://www.otb.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=2e2a5b07-3f77-4d71-
b1d1-33a897e794aa&lang= en&binary=/doc/Conference%20paper%20Claessens.pdf>.
Crawford M., 1999, ‘Exploring (New) Urbanism: a conference at the GSD March 4-6, 1999’,
Harvard Graduate School of Design, Cambridge - Massachusetts, 4-6 March 1999.
Dimitriadis K., 1946, . « » (in Greek: Old
neighbourhoods. Second series of “the olden Athens”), Saliveros, Athens.
Eudes D., 1972, The Kapetanios: partisans and civil war in Greece, 1943-1949, New Left
Books, London.

The Distinct Spatial Characteristics of Exárchia, Athens

The Distinct Spatial Characteristics of Exárchia, Athens

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Distinct Spatial Characteristics of Exárchia, Athens

Similar to The Distinct Spatial Characteristics of Exárchia, Athens (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Distinct Spatial Characteristics of Exárchia, Athens