As a final year Masters student of Architecture at The University of South Australia we are encouraged to focus on a single topic of interest throughout the year, all the while integrating our research into our ongoing design studio work.  The topic which has captured my attention is the studies of behavioural architecture, especially that of anthropologist Edward T Hall the author of ‘The Hidden Dimension,’ and the application of the studies of personal/behavioural space within design concepts. Hall is remembered for developing the concept of proxemics, ‘the study of the human use of space within the context of culture’. Proxemics is one of the most important aspects of non-verbal communication.  He (Hall) argues that differing cultural frame works for defining and organizing space, which are internalized in all people at an unconscious level, can lead to a serious failures of communication and understanding in cross cultural settings. (Hall Edward, The Hidden Dimension, 1966, p 103-106)

Hall states that the three aspects of proxemics are;

Fixed feature – one of the ways people organize activities, houses, buildings, cities

Semi-fixed – the arrangement of public places. These he places under two topics, socio- petal and socio- fugal, the latter being spaces which bring people together, the former spaces which keep people apart. For example, sidewalk cafes down a European street an arrangement which generally encourages much social interactive behaviour, would be classified as socio- fugal, as shown in image 1, in contrast to the general fixed row arrangement of furniture often found in a doctors waiting room, socio- petal (demonstrated in image 2.)

Informal – unconscious distance maintained during human interaction

Image 1 sidewalk cafes down a European street, http://www.euaustralia.com/wp-content/brussels-street-cafe1.jpg

Image 2 Doctors waiting room, http://www.mycaretext.com/wp-content/uploads/waiting-room.jpg

I have found that personal comfort levels and the way in which people naturally arrange themselves in spaces has been largely disregarded in many design cases with preference bending more towards the overall planning appearing neat and structured. Unfortunately this has resulted in spaces which are, to an extent, anti-interactive. For example a study was undertaken in the 1950s on an old folks ward located in western Canada due to the ward physicians concern for its occupant’s lack of interaction. Anthropologist Robert Space spent many hours talking to and observing the ward patients. What he found was that the nurses caring for the ward were taking more interest in making it easier for them to clear and clean the spaces that they were arranged in a way which virtually discouraged verbal contact between the elderly ladies. All beds and chairs were placed side by side against the walls so that neat linear lines were all that were seen within the space, (example shown in image3). They were also denied any sense of territorial claim as desks had similarly been moved out of the wards by the nurses to increase ease in which they may feed their patience. Following Roberts report back to the wards physician immediate changes were made within the space. Tables were brought back and chairs allowed to be moved away from the walls perimeter. Within two weeks a 45% increase in social interaction within the room was recorded. (Robert Sommer,' personal space, The behavioral basis of design', 1969, New Jersey)

Subtle design decisions to guide people down certain paths can be found in a range of spaces, from supermarkets, where aisles have been narrowed so that it is more difficult for customers to strike up conversation and hence focus more intently on the products at hand, to the foyers of prestigious hotels such as the Hilton’s where the number of couches were decreased to discourage loitering of guests.

Image 3  Hospital ward, https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUY0MsBt-faaB2Al1Cdg9XPx-1DaxdKsSWbx4z6es9N_Y6tfkbz1m8zsb2MaQWGrwpNmWM0a-GS9WSO0HBkrjmGj-n8BBlpPYhWsd-SSeUrX7LS4ppo8Vw-eZtaiT05qnovrhIv9gse3Mn/s1600/430-ward.jpg

The question I ask is what happens when the size of the spaces are increased tenfold? If people’s personal interaction within a room can be so affected by the spatial arrangement how great can a space between two multistory buildings affect a person? Is enough attention to detail being placed on the orientation of neighboring buildings or have the architect become too obsessed with ensuring their design is the most prominent instead of the most contextually considered?