[R&T] Essay_One

The Social Logic of Space

Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson

This paper appealed to me by the first few lines in explaining very clearly in the idea of logic in design. At the beginning of this essay the concept of an artefact is discussed and the theory that everything designed has a certain amount of logic at the first notion of its inception. The idea that a principal action in design is to create a functional objective that then leads to a second dimension of style makes a lot of sense to my own personal theory of design. The main quote in this paragraph that I find is important is ‘there is never any doubt that the artefact does belong to two realms. Invariably, artefacts are both functional and meaningful’. Design is first practical then social.

The paper develops by evolving the idea of form follows functions in architecture and the paradox that the style of a building is most often the main concern of the public. The concept that buildings are a peculiar property that sets them apart from other forms in that the relationship between usefulness and social meaning are complicated by volume of space and pattern.

“It is this ordering of space that is the purpose of building, not the physical object itself”.

The idea that buildings are not what they seem is a clear statement to get the reader to realise that buildings are not just physical artefacts but they have purpose and a relationships between function and a social agenda. The believe that architecture is not just a ‘social art’ or a visual symbol of society is a strong theory in this paper and develops to describe how building form organised space that is recognisable to society.

Something which seem so simply written in this text which actually I find is quite often missed in architectural theory is the difficulty in talking about buildings as what they are socially and not what they appear to be. The authors describe how it is much easier to talk about style and socially relevant description of materiality then it is to discuss functional from. The paper goes on to describe: ‘When space does feature in architectural criticism it is usually at the level of surface’ which is so very often the case in modern architectural journals and magazine reviewing current buildings.

When space is discussed in journals for example it is most often at a level of individual space rather then the system of spatial relationships; this can make reading the plan and settlement of a design difficult and means the reader can lose the buildings intended experience.

The paper then moves on to discuss the idea of anthropology and understanding different cultures is an interesting example of how different social groups conceive architectural form and pattern. I find that this subject is something that is relevant to all types of design large or small, all societies vary, not only in the style of architecture but also most importantly in the way form is lay out and circulated. The next section I believe attempts to develop the readers understanding of theory and method that is directly concerned with the relation between society and urban form. It determinations that form is of order in itself and is created for social purpose which is both constrained and recognisable.

The main bulk of this paper discusses the concept of ‘order in space as restrictions on an underlying random process’. Which later moves on to describe the result of strangers policing space and the inhabitants policing the strangers. However the most significant concept is the idea of the distinction between inside and outside and the distinction of the interior space of building and the collective exterior. This seems an important element to the paper and in short it is space that is a function of the forms of social solidarity, and these are in turn a product of the structure of society.

From this text I have understood that the authors are trying to communicate that buildings are not just objects that are adapted but are spaces that are adopted through objects. Architecture determines the substantial extent to which we become automatically aware of others, both who live near strangers and as a result of living out everyday life in space. ‘Society, it is said, begins with interaction, not with mere co-presence and awareness’.

To conclude this essay and my understanding for what this paper is trying to deliberate through the idea of randomness and its role in society to design space by the influence of encounters and the awareness of others. Without different social systems and encounters architectural form would not become the places that we know or recognise.