See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335910605

Space As Configuration: Patterns of Space

Conference Paper · November 2015

CITATIONS READS

3 9,283

1 author:

Esin Hasgül
Istanbul University
21 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Esin Hasgül on 19 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARCHTHEO 2015_ 9th Theory and History of Architecture Conference
05 - 07 November 2015 / Istanbul, Turkey

SPACE AS CONFIGURATION: PATTERNS OF SPACE AND CULTURE

Esin Hasgül, Istanbul Kultur University, Faculty of Architecture.

Abstract
The theory of architecture has an inquisitory point of view through the design, production or
the use of space. Thinking upon the space and its interrelations between other subjects, the
main problematic of this research is the space as configuration: how it constitutes itself and
relates with human. Thus, the point can be divided into two groups which are the physical
formation of the space and the social experience of the person self. Relating these two
subjects, the patterns of space and the patterns of culture comes up to the issue.

Spatial configuration can be defined as a progressive process which connects the built
environment and the human’s spatial experience and behaviour. Nevertheless, apart from
this connection the configuration of space has also a cultural meaning which relates with the
everyday life living patterns. With this regard, firstly the theoretical background is being
discussed through examining the physical formation of the space: shape and spatial
configuration. Secondly, the social experience of the human is being discussed while
understanding human’s spatial experience and cultural living patterns. On the third part, the
space syntax technique opened up to the issue, reading both the patterns of space and
culture. It is aimed to see the possibilities of space syntax in order to understand the social
logic of the space. Thus, some plans will be analysed using the space syntax diagrammes and
comparisons are being made. The relation between the patterns of space and culture will be
investigated. The findings will be discussed upon the space syntax research which defines
spatial configuration as the understanding of social dimension in human environment.

Keywords: Configuration, space syntax, cultural meaning, living patterns, spatial experience.
.
Introduction
Description of the Subject
Built form (shape) can be defined as a physical appearance in architecture. Nevertheless, it
constitutes a space having configurational properties which also have social and cultural
meanings. Spatial arrangements consist of several organizational units in which different
living patterns occur. Thus it becomes important to make a connection between the physical
arrangements and the cultural living patterns of the space.
According to Rapoport (1980), environments are thought before they are built. The design
of a space has a prethinking process. Architects configure the space as they use this
prethinking and designing process. Then there is a process of producing and using the space
as it is presented. Pearson & Richards (1994) examines this as ‘’We build in order to think and
act. The relationship is essentially dynamic and reflexive. Winston Churchill said that -first we
shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us-’’. So we can consider that there is
a kind of interaction between the space we built and the built space that effects us.
The conception of a space can be shallowly defined as a series of objects that exists and
the organisation of them or in other words the way they come together. So the first part of
the research subject can be examined the space and the spatial organisation. On the other
hand, there is also a human who involve in the space and constitute a new kind of meaning in
the space. Heidegger focuses on this point as ‘’What is being?’’ and the word ‘’Dasein’’ which
refers to ‘’Being there’’. For Heidegger, a building was built according to the specifics of place
and inhabitants, shaped by its physical and human topography (Sharr, 2007). Thus, the second
part comprises from the human as involving in the space with its internal experiences. In
addition, the human spatial experience lead us to the cultural living patterns. The reason why
there is a two-sided relation between the space and the human is that of the patterns of the
space which affect the human and the patterns of the culture that influence the space. The
third part of the subject is then understanding both the patterns of space and the culture.

Arguments
The theoretical discussions in a part of the architectural theory investigates the meaning of
the space. While the arguments are made between the usage of the space and the meaning
that the human give to, it becomes significant to understand the social relations in
architecture. However, it is hard to talk about the social relations in architecture while it is
easier to talk about the appearances and styles. ‘’By ignoring symbolic meanings we overlook
the possibility that design structures have different meanings in different cultural contexts.
The approach may also ignore differing cultural strategies of privacy regulation. Unwarranted
assumptions about relative depth of space as equivalent to ease of access are implicitly made,
while it rarely yields any information on the meaning and uses of specific spaces’’ (Pearson &
Richards, 1994).
While talking about the space, the problem of the space is not just about the objects that
it has; it is also a necessity to talk about the relations between these objects. The first
argument is the physical formation of the space which can be defined as shape: How shape
configures a space and how the objects relatedly make a spatial configuration. Nevertheless,
Hillier & Hanson (1984) claims that the ordering of a space in buildings is really about the
ordering of relations between people and they are social objects through their very form as
objects. So it is another discussion that the ordering of the space into also a social relational
system. Hillier & Hanson (1984) explains the subject through the theory of ‘’Territoriality’’
which relates the space a a social reality:
 (1) First, the organisation of space by human beings is said to have originated in and can
be accounted for by a universal, biologically. The theory proposes in effect that there will
always be a correspondence between socially identified groups and spatial domains, and that
the dynamics of spatial behaviour will be concerned primarily with maintaining this
correspondence.
(2) Second, especially in the theory’s limitations, might be thought of as an attempt to
locate the origins of spatial order in the individual biological subject. Other approaches might
be seen as trying to locate it in the individual cultural subject by developing theories of a
more cognitive kind (pp. 6-7).
The examination here is the ‘’Social logic of the space’’; there is an organization in the
physical environment, but certainly also a structuring of the social activities in the physical
environment. There are some cognitive studies that provide us to make a connection with the
theory. In order to give meaning to a space, one argument is to understand the patterns of
use and social activities.

Objectives and Aims

The aim of this research is to analyse the relation between the spatial object and the social
subject while examining the structural formation of the space. It is a discussion how the
organization of the space originates from the social life and how the existing social patterns
harmonise with the spatial organization.
A social theory of space would account first for the relations that are found in different
circumstances between the two types of spatial order characteristic of societies — that is, the
arrangement of people in space and the arrangement of space itself - and second it would
show how both were a product of the ways in which a society worked and reproduced itself
(Hillier & Hanson, 1984). Then additionally, another objective is to make a theoretical link to
the patterns of the space and the culture.

Theoretical Discussions
The Physical Formation of The Space
The physical formation of the space can be described as the materialist part of the space
theory. The formation can be started with the built shape which it can be also described as
form. Then after seeing the general built shape, in order to understand the physical formation
it is important to see the internal structure; the spatial organization.
Peponis (1997) defines built shape referring to the set of all wall surfaces of a complex.
The built shape generally consists of the vertical and horizontal surfaces which figures out the
division of space while configuring the spatial shape. By the way, the term spatial
configuration is used to refer to ‘’The structure of potential movement and copresence as
determined by the placement of boundaries in space and by the connections and
disconnections between areas that results from the presence of boundaries’’ (Peponis,1997).
So, the existing shape of the space can be one discussion however the spatial configuration
also makes another built shape which is also another discussion.
Figure 1. shows three different spatial configuration in the same shaped space. Hillier
(2007) describes the figure as ‘’In the first column in black, in the normal way describes the
pattern of physical elements of the buildings. The corresponding figures in the second column
then show in black the corresponding pattern of spatial elements’’. The built shape here is
same in all; just the internal cell entrances are different from each other. So despite of the
fact that the general physical formation of the spaces are all same, the spatial relations can be
different as it is shown. The third column shows the branched pattern of the physical
configuration. Defining the shape and the spatial configuration, it can be seen that these
terms comprises the pattern of the space and relatedly the pattern that the human is using in
the space.

Figure 1. Three spatial configuration in the same built shape (Hillier,2007).

Kim (1999) defines a structured grid as one in which integration and intelligibility are
arranged in a pattern of some kind. In reality, lines and areas are prioritised for integration
and intelligibility to varying degrees in order to create a system of differentiation, which
supports functionality and intelligibility. The integration and connectivity are two terms here
which come apart in the physica property of the space. Psarra (2013) highlights that if the
paths from a space to everywhere else travel through few spaces then this space is
integrated. If they cover many spaces, the space is segregated. Then in order to talk about the
intelligibility of a space, the inner integration and connection are the use of physical space
patterns.
The bodily existence of the space in human’s perception is visibly seen in the objects and
the integration of the objects that come together. The formation is about the form of the
space; however the argument is to see the configurational form of the space which can be
briefly explained as ordering the objects. Nevertheless, ordering the objects is not only
making the relation between the physical objects, it is also the process of ordering the
relation between the human. Thus, on the other part, it becomes important to analyse the
social experience of the human.
The Social Experience of The Human
Cuisenier (1997) defines the spatial study generally conducted in two ways, from the
observation of buildings tracing back to the experience of users or builders, or from the living
experience of built space followed by speculation about how spaces are created. While
talking about the space with its all contents, as done by the spatial studies, it is pragmatic to
look from the experience of the human in the space.
Between the built environment and the human spatial experience, the spatial
configuration can be divided into two groups: one is the spatial cognition and the other is the
spatial behaviour (see Fig.2). The cognition work of the theory is how the configuration of the
space relates with the human’s perception while the behaviour work is about how the
configuration be reference to the human activities in space. Kim (1999) connects these two
and combine them in analysing configurational knowledge. The configurational knowledge is
the spatial understanding which results in the human spatial experience.
Thungsakul (2001) describes the configurational approach of spatial arrangement based
on the theoretical concept that if built space is composed of organizational units, it is because
they are responding to precise living patterns and the way space is organized by its
inhabitants gives a deeper understanding of experience taking into account a social system.
While examining the physical configuration of the space, the other way is to see the social
configuration of the space which has a two-sided relation. Shape and the spatial configuration
of the space configures a spatial layout that constitutes an experiential platform for human
which includes an cultural meaning.

Figure 2. Relevant Studies for Spatial Configuration and Social Experience (Kim,1999).

While talking about the spatial properties and the arrangements, we see that many spatial
theory concludes as they are behaviorally and culturally shaped. So the social pattern reltes
with the physical formation of the space. The use of space differs from culture to culture; we
see that the configuration of a Turkish house and a French house has discretely patterns from
which they come from a different way of live patterns. It is significant to see the differences,
because the arrengement and the partition system in buildings depends on the human
behaviour which the architectural behavioural theories examine. Shatzky (2009) defines the
spatiality relating with the term settings which exist in a particular geographical area depends
on the physical arrangements that exist there and what practices are carried on amid or in
relation to those arrangements. The relation mentioned here is between the space and the
human: The involvement of the human activity in space or the human spatial experience.
The spatial layouts can offer both limitations and potentials. When we consider the spatial
configurations, integration is one of the related issue as mentioned configuring the cultural
patterns. Hillier (2007) comprises another argument as the ‘’Non-discursivity of
Configuration’’ which is automatic and unconcious. Dividing the issue in two parts; the
analytic and social knowledge comes apart. It is important to analyse these two,
understanding their principles appear in the human (Table 1).

Abstract Spacial-Temporal
Principles Events
Social Codes, rules Speech, social
knowledge ideas to think behaviour, spaces
ideas to think
Analytic Therories, ‘Facts’
knowledge hypothesis, Phenomena
paradigms
Table 1. The Structure of the Social and Analytic Knowledge (Hillier,2007).

Most of the patterns of the space differs from culture to culture; but we see that the
general charactertistics or some defined properties are subject to social knowledge which are
the human habits of doing or the culture in everday life. While designing a building, the
configuration depends on various subjects, but indeed there is also the non-discursivity where
the configuration comprises from the social and cultural meaning of the human.
Goonewardena, & Kipfer & Milgrom & Schmid (eds) (2008) explains the designer’s direction
as, therefore, a representation of space—not only is it a prescription for the configuration of
form, but it makes assumptions about the spatial practices of the users, their understanding
of the space, and the symbolism carrying the designer’s intention. So the architectural
platform is also investigating the spatial and physical form relating with the cultural form.
Architects investigation about the experience of the human in the built environment are
mostly depend on the visual perception of the observer. Benedikt (1979) defines a new term
for this issue as the ‘’isovist’’: Thus a description of an environment by means of isovists
allows one to study not only the environment but also something of the visual experience of
it, space-contingent and spatial behaviours that are also isovist-related behaviours are thus
open to discovery and investigation (see Figure.3).
 Figure 3. Three isovist in three different spatial layout (Benedikt, 1979).
Benedikt’s (1979) description however can be categorised here in the analytic knowledge
of the human which ignores the social knowledge of the observer. It can be put in the spatial
cognition of the human, trying to understand the spatial configuration of the space.
Nevertheless, it should also relate with the spatial behaviour which comprises from the social
knowledge of the human. It would be more pragmatic to understand bothe the patterns of
space and the patterns of the culture.

The Patterns of Space and The Culture

The analysis concerns the interpretation of architectural space from different patterns of
interior circulation that are formed regarding daily life experience. In order to create a
supportive built space, the arrangement of space depends on the nature of activity, users,
cultural values and norms (Thungsakul, 2001). The formation of the space can not be
described as a static object; time makes every object in a changeable way. Thus, the change in
human concludes also the change in the space, making the space having a dynamic character.
To see the patterns of the space, the patterns of the culture becomes substantial to be
compared and clarified. Everyday intuition tells us that the space created by buildings and
cities exists for us as patterns of differentiated and related spaces, which somehow reflect or
embody patterns of life (Hillier, 2005).
The organization that can be discerned in stories about space in everyday culture is
inverted by the process that has isolated a system of places (De Certeau, 1988). Spatiality
consists of being a system; a system of creating a spatial and cultural phenomena. Society
creates a spatial system that is influenced by the everyday living patterns. But the spatial
system also affect the people, comparatively. The spatial system or in other words the system
of spaces makes the patterns of the space, additionally understanding the society itself. ‘’The
conclusion is that configurations of spaces have not only a grammar, but also a ‘syntax’: the
pattern of relationships between spaces. Investigating the information processing in the built
form and the configuration of the space, ‘’Space Syntax’’ comes into the stage as a set of
representational technique. Space Syntax is a system of understanding the social relation in
human environment. From this point of view, the objective of the spatial configuration
becomes fundamental to understand the social logic of a settlement. So the patterns of the
space relates with te other spaces that comprises a settlement which is the research field of
the Space Syntax.
Space Syntax is a geometry-related analyse of the spatial configuration of the
environments. Its configurational properties which are particularly relevant to the social
function and cultural meaning. Peponis (1997) describes Space Syntax in three essential steps:
 (1) First, spatial patterns are represented as sets of linear elements of potential
movement or convex elements of potential togetherness.
(2) Second, systems of relationships are described according to the permeable
adjacencies of convex spaces, the overlap of convex elements, or the intersections of
lines -linking elements according to the intersections of their “isovist” has also been
practice, following an adaptation of Benedikt’s (1979) ideas.
(3) Third, graph-theoretic measures, such as “connectivity”,“integration”,“intelligibility”,
and “choice” are applied to the systems of relationships thus established (See
Figure.4).
Space Syntax firstly seeks to find out the background of the human activity in the space
and then investigates the individual spaces, the system of spaces, spatial configuration of a
building in a whole systematic way. While doing so, it is also finding out the cultural patterns
of the space.

Figure 4. Three Essential Steps in Space Syntax Analyses (Peponis, 1997).

Dursun and Saglamer (2003) clarifies the main interest of Space Syntax as the relation
between human beings and their inhabited spaces and it is believed that distinctive
characteristics of societies exist within spatial systems, and their knowledge is conveyed
through space itself, and through the organisation of spaces. By space syntax, space and
social activity relate in two ways:
(1) A spatial layout can reflect and embody a social pattern,
(2) Space can also shape a social pattern, as in the case of the movement study, since by
shaping movement (Hillier, 2005).
Space Syntax can provide an analyse of the configurational both in the city level or in the
interior level. The main focus point is to connect the patterns of the space and the culture.
Analysing The Plans And The Cultural Patterns
Understanding the interior configuration of the spaces, Hillier & Hanson (1984) expresses that
it would be pragmatic to start analysing the ’’Elementary Building’’ and its transformation
appear to be among the simplest model on earth: the tent and hut dwellings of nomads. To
see the spatial form by considering the elementary building and its social relations, it would
be more comprehensible analysing the cultural transformation in the configuration of the
space.

Figure 5. The Elemantary Building (Hillier & Hanson, 1984).

The elementary building can be defined as a closed cell with a permeability defining a
contiguous open cell (see Figure.5).
The configuration can be clasified as this cell go through a phase and determines its limits with
the cultural living patterns. To analyse the transformation of the cell; there are three types of
spatial configuration we see in three different cultured nomad as they configure their own space
with their own arrangement: the Bedouin tent, the Tuareg tent and the Mongolian yurt. The
evolution of the elemantary building into different directions, these three tents gives us the clues
how the cultural living patterns appear in the space.
In order to analyse the plan of the buildings investigating the cultural issue in the interior level
and compare the cultural issues in the space, one of the tools in Space Syntax is that of to use the
plan of the space and the justified graph.
Starting with the Bedouin tent firstly, we see a seperation of the women and men’s side with a
curtain. This dividing curtain also distingushes the host and guest’s side; sit and talk together.
Secondly, the space outside has a mark indicating that it is a place for prayer, and this implies of
course that it is a male-dominated space. Thirdly, although the rules for hospitality are extremely
strong - a Bedouin must give three days' hospitality even to his enemies – there is a strong
prohibition on guests seeing into the women's side of the tent (Hillier & Hanson, 1984). The
configuration is generally dominated by the men and the space has a asymmetry, defining the
place for the men, women and the guests (see Figure.6.1).
Besides, the Tuareg tent has a different spatial configuration and cultural patterns. First of all,
there are some functions that spread out of the inner space which are more relatedly with women.
Second, men receive guests outside the tent, and even outside the settlement, where men spend
much of their time. The plan already shows the third property: that the distinction between men
and women is not made inside the tent (Hillier & Hanson, 1984). We can not see the separation of
the men and women’ places and also their guest-welcoming places are not also clearly defined in
the configuration of the Tuareg tent (see Figure.6.2).
Coming to the Mongolian yurt, whose location is far from the others, we cannot see again the
seperation in the space. Nevertheless, we see a different kind of built form that has a dept and
centralized space. This built form is defined by Hillier & Hanson (1984) as words, this most
extreme development of a structured interior that we have yet encountered is brought into being
not by the multiplication of boundaries but by their elimination, and to the Mongols the roof is the
sky, the hole in the roof the Sun - the Eye of Heaven through which comes the light. Thus, the
spatial structure of the yurt has an organizational property of the everyday life. The configuration
consists of the centralized square and the round shape of the plan configres the other objects
settling on the sides. The places for the guests, inhabitants and the children is defined generally;
but not with a wall seperation. Men and women sides are also mentioned; additionally not like
with the Bedouin tent’s seperation (see Figure.6.3).
Figure 6. The Bedoin Tent. The Tuareg Tent and Mongolian Yurt (Adapted from Hillier &
Hanson, 1984).
Consequental Discussions
The analysis of different type of spatial configuration that are made by different cultured
nomads can be a description to the spatial properties of domestic activities occurring in
different spaces. Spatial configuration defined as a progress of self-build process here shows
how cultural living patterns distingush both the built shape and the spatial configuration.
The first discussion is to see the relation between the formation of the space and the
social experience of the human self. For most of the history of architecture, theory and
critism, the formation of the space was the first focused part, investigating the physical form
of the space. In addition, while criticizing the physical form of the space, it is another topic
that the space has cultural patterns. The spatial configuration is one of the argument here in
order to look for the issue through the system of space that comprises a whole spatial system.
Another discussion is that how the patterns of space and patterns of culture interrelate
with each other. Are the spaces are configured according to the patterns of culture in a
society or are the configurated spaces started to define our cultural living patterns? This
argument can be related with the ‘’non-discursivity’’ of the spatial configuration as it is
automatic and also unconcious. The social knowledge comprises from our habits of doing, our
culture in everyday life. This social knowledge relates with the analytic knowledge which
constitutes our patterns of space. The discussion here can be made through how different
societies configure their living environments or how a society transform their environments
relating with the changings in the cultural patterns.
Consequently, today we are talking about the global form of the space; however this form
has not been concieved or designed by an individual; we can conclude that it has arisen from
the collection of individuals and their cultural living patterns.
References
Benedikt, M.L., 1979. To Take Hold of Space: Isovists and Isovist Fields, Journal of
Environment and Planning B. Vol. 6, pp. 47-65.

De Certeau, M., 1988. The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press.

Dursun, P. & Saglamer, G., 2003. “Spatial Analysis of Different Home Environments in the City
of Trabzon”, J. Hanson (Ed.), Proc., 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, University
Collage London, 17-19 June 2003, vol. II, pp.54-54.18.

Goonewardena, K.& Kipfer S.& Milgrom R. & Schmid C. (eds)., 2008. Space, Place, Everyday
Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre, Taylor&Francis Group, New York and London.

Hillier, B. & Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Hillier, B., 2007. Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture, Press
Syndicate of the University of Cambridge (electronic edition), UK.

Hillier, B., 2005. The Art of Place and the Science of Space, World Architecture 11/2005 185,
Beijing, Special Issue on Space Syntax pp. 96-102.

Kim, Y. O., 1999. Spatial Configuration, Spatial Cognition And Spatial Behaviour: The Role of
Architectural Intelligibility in Shaping Spatial Experience, Doctorate Thesis, Bartlett School of
Architecture, Building, Environmental Design and Planning University College, London.

Pearson, M.K. & Richards, C., 1994. Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, from
the article ’’Ordering The World: Perceptions Of Architecture, Space And Time’’, pp. 1-33,
Routledge, London and New York.

Peponis, J., 1997. Geometries of Architectural Description: Shape and Spatial Configuration,
Space Syntax 1st International Symposium, London.

Psarra, S., 2013. Architecture and Narrative: The Formation of Space and Cultural Meaning,
Routledge, London and New York.

Rapoport, A., 1980. ‘Vernacular Architecture and The Cultural Determinants of Form’, in A.D.
King (ed.), Buildings and Society: Essays on the Social Development of the Built Environment,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sharr, A., 2007. Heidegger for Architects, Routledge, London and New York.

Shatzky, T., 2009. Timespace and The Organizaton of Social Life, Berg Publishers Ltd, Oxford.

Thungsakul, N., 2001. A Syntactic Analysis Of Spatial Configuration Towards The

Understandiıng Of Continuity And Change In Vernacular Living Space: A Case Study In The
Upper Northeast Of Thailand, Doctorate Thesis, Graduate School of the University of Florida,
Florida.

View publication stats