The embodied divisions and hierachies between things, persons and practices that construct social world.
Our positions within buildings leads our dispositions in social life; the spatial "division" of our world becomes a vision of our world.
What kinds of agency are enabled and constrained by the particular building genotype within which it is structured and whose interests are served? How is everyday life bracketed and punctuated into socio-spatially framed situations and locales?
Hiller distinguishes between "long" and "short" (or deep and shallow) models of spatial structuring:
The Long Model - conserves and reproduces statues and hierachy.
A "ritual" is a long model social event, since all that happens is governed by rules, and a ritual typically generates a precise system of spatial relationships and movements through time.
The Short Model - generates new possibilities for social relations.
A "party" is a short model event, since its object is to generate new relationships by shuffling them in space, and this means that rules must be minimized by using a spatial "short model"
A permeable network of space can be associated with practices of social freedom.
Buildings are assigned to produce an illusion of freedom coupled with the reality of control and surveillance.
Hiller and Hanson term correspondence as a spatial zone that "corresponds" to any social groupings.
High Correspondence Level:
Deterministic of patterns of social encounters, i.e space that operates to exclude random encounters and to keep "difference" at a distant.
Non Correspondence Level:
A system that will mix people of different social patterns , i.e it is a spatial model that breeds encounters with difference.
This analogy of various levels of correspondence relates to the social independency of interior and exterior space.
The interior space is more strongly structured and segmented, therefore the correspondence model prevails with a primary function in the reproduction of social relations.
The external space is more countered by the non correspondence space.
If these correspondences were to be exchanged, they would contradict themselves.
Interior Space on a Non Correspondence Level - Random encounter would undermine the social reproductive function of the interiors.
External Space on a High Correspondence Level - The determinism of interior structures would kill urban densities, i.e. tree-like genotypes (housing enclaves) would invade public space.
These relationships and contradictions is where Koolhaas attempts to try the opposite. He does this by playing with the tension between inside and outside, using the encounter structures of urban space to effect innovations in interior space. Koolhaas appears to adopt a Deleuzian epistemology incorporating ideals of "smooth space", where as Hillier is more materialist and empirical.
Both works rest upon shared claims about the importance of social encounters and shared concerns for architecture as a "machine".
Buildings are assigned to produce an illusion of freedom coupled with the reality of control and surveillance.
Hiller and Hanson term correspondence as a spatial zone that "corresponds" to any social groupings.
High Correspondence Level:
Deterministic of patterns of social encounters, i.e space that operates to exclude random encounters and to keep "difference" at a distant.
Non Correspondence Level:
A system that will mix people of different social patterns , i.e it is a spatial model that breeds encounters with difference.
This analogy of various levels of correspondence relates to the social independency of interior and exterior space.
The interior space is more strongly structured and segmented, therefore the correspondence model prevails with a primary function in the reproduction of social relations.
The external space is more countered by the non correspondence space.
If these correspondences were to be exchanged, they would contradict themselves.
Interior Space on a Non Correspondence Level - Random encounter would undermine the social reproductive function of the interiors.
External Space on a High Correspondence Level - The determinism of interior structures would kill urban densities, i.e. tree-like genotypes (housing enclaves) would invade public space.
These relationships and contradictions is where Koolhaas attempts to try the opposite. He does this by playing with the tension between inside and outside, using the encounter structures of urban space to effect innovations in interior space. Koolhaas appears to adopt a Deleuzian epistemology incorporating ideals of "smooth space", where as Hillier is more materialist and empirical.
Both works rest upon shared claims about the importance of social encounters and shared concerns for architecture as a "machine".
No comments:
Post a Comment