Architectural Space as a Network - Physical and Virtual Communities

Architectural Space as a Network Dr Kerstin Sailer, December 2012

ARCHITECTURAL SPACE AS A NETWORKPHYSICAL AND VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES

Dr Kerstin SailerBartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London

Lorentz Workshop ‘Innovation at the Verge – Computational Models of Physical / Virtual Space Interaction’, Leiden / NL, 17-21 Dec 2012


Architectural Space as a Network

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

SOCIALBEHAVIOURS

construct affects


Architectural Space as a NetworkCo-presence of occupants:

‘Virtual Community’


Architectural Space as a Network

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

Bill Hillier (1996): Space is the Machine


Bill Hillier (1996): Space is the Machine

Architectural Space as a Network – The Method of Space Syntax


Bill H

illier

(199

6): S

pace

is th

e Mac

hine



10

01

1

1

1

2 2

23 3

100

12

23

3

4

4

5

6

Total depth: 16

Total depth: 30







Floor plan

Axial topology

Metric topology

Visual graph analysis

Space usage, e.g. movement flow


Integrated Segregated


Space Syntax Research: Comparative Analysis of Cities

© Bill Hillier et al

1000m 500m

Part of Tokyo Part of London

Architectural Space as a Network Dr Kerstin Sailer, December 201210000m

© Bi

ll Hilli

er et

al

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


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

© Bi

ll Hilli

er et

al


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

© Bi

ll Hilli

er et

al


Space Syntax Research: City Centres and Retail Activity

© La

ura V

augh

an, S

am G

riffit

hs, M

uki H

aklay

, Kat

e Jon

es


Space Syntax Research: Public Spaces

© Anna Rose / Space Syntax Ltd.

Old Market Square, Nottingham


Space Syntax Research: Public Spaces

© Anna Rose / Space Syntax Ltd.

Old Market Square, Nottingham


Space Syntax Research: Museums

Spatial configuration and movement flows at Tate Britain

SOCIALBEHAVIOURS

© Bill Hillier / Space Syntax Ltd.


Space Syntax Research: Libraries

Movement flows in the British Library

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

ReadersNon-Readers


Space Syntax Research: Workplace Environments

Movement flows in offices: result of configuration and attractor placement

SOCIALBEHAVIOURS

© Kerstin Sailer


From Spatial to Transpatial Solidarities: from Virtual to Real Communities

SOCIALBEHAVIOURS


Spatial and Transpatial Solidarities

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

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

(Hillier and Hanson 1984: 18ff)

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


SOCIAL SOLIDARITIESFORM Mechanic Organic

Integration through similarity Interdependence through differentiationHomogeneity Heterogeneity

ORGANISATIONAL OPERATIONS

Long models, i.e. strongly programmed Short models, i.e. weakly programmedHierarchies Network StructureVertical communication Lateral communicationTranspatial Spatial

SPATIAL IMPLICATIONS

Segregated and sparse space Integrated and dense spaceInterior relations, ‘inside’ Exterior relations, ‘outside’Well defined categorical differences between spaces

Weakly defined categorical differences between spaces

High levels of control of events and encounter

Low levels of control of events and encounter

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



Spatial Solidarities

WHERE WE ARE

Location, Neighbourhoods, Proximity, Physical Closeness

Transpatial Solidarities

WHO WE ARE

Gender, Age, Profession, Affiliations, Memberships, Interests

The Guildhall, City of London



Interplay between Spatial & Transpatial – Example 1

Organisational Cultures in the British Museum

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


Lack of local identities in a Media Company

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

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



Time-space routines and social cohesion in Research Institute

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




Two mechanisms for bonding and social relationships between people:

1. Sharing same local world and coming together in physical space (spatial solidarity);

2. Shared interests or goals, which may overcome / transverse boundaries of physical space (transpatial solidarity);

SPATIAL TRANS-SPATIAL

Virtual Community Real Community

Example: The Guild


Impact of Technologies – Physical and Virtual Spaces


Impact of Technologies

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

Emergence of ‘Online Communities’


Impact of Technologies – Networked Individualism

Networked Individualism (Rainie and Wellman 2012):

People function as connected individuals; partial membership in multiple networks instead of permanent membership in settled groups;

Made possible by:• Social Network Revolution: opportunities to reach beyond tightly knit groups• Internet Revolution: communication and information-gathering power• Mobile Revolution: accessibility, anywhere and anytime

KINSHIP

PAST SOCIETY: fixed groups

CURRENT / FUTURE SOCIETY: networked individualism

WORK

CHURCHVillage / Town Various spatial scales


Impact of Technologies: Physical and Digital Space

How do people find information? Example: Rosetta Stone at British Museum

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

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



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

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



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

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



Finding information on Rosetta Stone at British Museum

→ different spatial experiences in physical & digital space, but also different social realities

PHYSICAL SPACE DIGITAL SPACE



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

Complex spatial configuration

Deep or shallow

Relative position or location matters

Distribution of users through spatial configuration / attractors

Unplanned encounter

Co-presence

PHYSICAL SPACE

Simple or no spatial configuration at all

Shallow / flat

Access matters

Distribution of users through access / self-selection process

Structured encounter

Lone activity

DIGITAL SPACE


Conclusions

Physical space in buildings and cities structures co-presence and interaction patterns of people;

Co-presence of people in space gives rise to ‘virtual community’: raw material of society, awareness and psychological dimension;

Communities emerge from the combination of spatial and transpatial worlds;

Technologies change the way in which people interact, yet physical space remains an important dimension;

Digital space allows online communities to flourish → distinctly different from affordances of physical space and implications for social relationships;

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


Thank you!Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @kerstinsailer

Dr Kerstin Sailer

Lecturer in Complex BuildingsBartlett School of Graduate Studies

University College London14 Upper Woburn Place

London WC1H 0NNUnited Kingdom

Education

Architectural Space as a Network - Physical and Virtual Communities