2541612

Architectural Design Analysis and Methodology

_______________________________________________________________________________

Investigation of Social Interaction in Residential Communal Spaces

: A Study of Spatial Distances, Permeability and Spatial Depth to Human Behaviour

Semester 2/2017
Master of Architecture in Architectural Design
(International Program)
Chulalongkorn University

A report submitted to
Dr. Pat Seeumpornroj

by
Khai Sin Lee

May 2017
1.0 Introduction

The provision of communal spaces in residential complexes is the contemporary design

agenda and space requirement in almost every housing project especially in high rise residential like
condominium and apartment. The communal spaces, which defined as the shared spaces are set up
not just to serve various facilities and functions but intentionally to provide spaces for
communication and interaction among residents and community. However, the created communal
spaces are seen to be unused most of the time, causing the spaces to be inefficient and less functional,
not to say about the social interaction happened among the community. It is always a subject
associated with the discussion of inappropriate communal spaces design led to the disconnection and
less social interaction between one and another. Although space design is always the subject matter
to this issue, in fact the factors are much broader when the functionalities of spaces are relating more
to the study of human behaviour. Therefore, this study is performed to identify the communal areas
in a public housing complex by examining the spatial relationship to the users’ behaviour from
sociology perspectives and architecture space theory. The study was based on the observations of
residents’ interactions happened in internal housing blocks and external communal spaces in the
public housing compound, with the comparative analysis to find out the failure of interaction in
certain communal spaces internally and externally. In order to address the issue of inefficiency of
communal spaces for social interaction, I argue that the neglect of concern about human behaviour in
using shared spaces is an issue causing the failure of social interaction in particular residential
compound.

Key terms: Communal Space, Social Interaction, Public Housing, Spatial Distance, Permeability,
Spatial Depth

2.0 Background

2.1 Spatial Distances as the Factors of Human Interaction

As mentioned, the inefficiency of communal spaces in encouraging social interaction within a

residential complex is partly caused by the neglect of concern about the human behaviour in using

1
communal spaces. The study of spatial aspect is essential to understand space as a system of
communication (Hall, 1969). Anthropologist, Edward T. Hall in his book “The Hidden Dimension”
has introduced his research on people’s use of space where he provided an amazing insight into
man's interaction with his spatial environment and demonstrates that each cultural group has unique
concepts of territoriality, crowding, distance, and space requirements. (Altman, 1977) Hall’s
perspectives addressed two important facets of the environment in relation to behaviour such as how
people actively use and shape the physical environment and the use of physical environment in the
management of social interaction. (Altman, 1977) From there, he stimulated by ethologist who
observed animal distances and hypothesized four spatial distances in human used to regulate social
interaction: intimate distance, personal distance, social distance and public distance. Hall’s emphasis
on distance as the vehicle of communication is also based on the other sensory modalities like touch,
sense, smell and vision where these modalities are importantly related to space.

Firstly, intimate distance is described as a zone that the presence of the other person is
unmistakable and may at times be overwhelming because of the greatly stepped-up sensory inputs. In
intimate distance, the opportunities of communication are high. However, the use of intimate
distance is not considered proper for adult especially when people were forced to intimate zone with
strangers. A good example that happened in our daily life has been given that is people who
positioned in crowded subways, buses or elevators feel discomfort by holding the bodies rigidly,
avoiding touching others, prevent from eye contacts and looking ahead, up or down blankly as the
expressions of discomfort. These reactions show that people are trying to make this distance
psychological less intimate and therefore proves that closer distance between strangers hardly induce
interaction. Second, personal distance is explained in the protective sphere where people maintain
between themselves and others. Communication possibilities are high in personal distance because it
seemed to be a normal contact distance that enables people to remain in reasonable proximity or to
move toward more or less personal communication. Furthermore, social distance which defined as a
zone that allows normal contact surprisingly is a type of distance that reduce communication
between one and another due to certain social setting that has more formal character. Hall gave
example that desks in the offices of important people are large enough to hold visitors at the far
phase of social distance. Even in an office with standard-size desks and chairs, interaction is only
happened somewhere or middle of zone. Hence, it is a distance when people want to be in contact
with another but not in overly intimate and intense way. Last but not least, public distance is a
distance that mostly used on public occasions and applied for public speakers to nearest members of

2
audience. Public distant zone is at the limits of easy communication unless special efforts made for
communication. (Hall, 1969).

Hall’s proposed four spatial distances has indeed addressed the idea of using distance as the
measure of examining human natures and behaviours. Although the hypothesis that Hall made are
not applicable and representative to all kinds of human behaviours as we understand that there are
various factors that subjects to social interaction, the research that he made has revealed the nature of
how people interact varied with different settings and circumferences. As architecture is discussed
has the role to improve social interaction, it is necessary for us to understand the requirement of
reasonable distance and sufficient width provided in communal spaces in order to encourage
communication and interaction between one and another.

In summary, the closer the distance between one another, the lower the opportunity to induce
social interaction. This is because smaller space will force people in an intimate distance in which it
is a discomfort distance to communicate. In contrast, the wider the distance or the more reasonable
the distance between one and another, the higher the chance for social interaction. Therefore,
sufficient width of communal spaces especially corridors, passages, courtyards in residential
complex are important to provide more comfortable distance with each other so that communication
or interaction has higher chances to be happened.

2.2 The Idea of Space Configuration and Human Behaviour

Further exploration about space aspect is to understand deeper about the theory of space.
Research has carried out by referring to Bill Hiller and Julienne Hanson, the theorists and inventors
of Space Syntax theory as a method for examining the role of spatial patterns and configurations in
several disciplines especially in urban design and architecture since 1984 in the book “The Social
Logic of Space”. As the extension of the first book, “Space is the Machine” has been published by
Hiller as the continuity of discussions about the idea of space, configuration as well as the
importance of analytic theory of architectural space. As the paper is focus much on how the qualities
of communal spaces induce interaction, the study of Space Syntax theory in this paper is applied on
the theoretical part more than analytical part.

Hiller began the book “Space is the Machine” with the introduction of the idea of space
where he stated space is rarely be conceptualised as a thing because space is significance linked to

3
human behaviour or intentionality. (Hillier, 1998) He further explained that human behaviour does
not simply happen in space as it has its own spatial forms. For example, encountering, congregating,
avoiding, interacting, dwelling, teaching, eating, conferring are not just activities that happen in
space but in themselves they constitute spatial patterns. Hence, it always lies in the relations between
configurations of people and configurations of space. (Hillier, 1998)

2.2.1 The Study of Permeability in Space Syntax Theory

To understand the importance of space configuration, Hiller

highlighted its influences of permeability to human spatial patterns.
Here, an example has been given to describe the theoretical study
of permeability. Three building figures with same number of
internal and external openings but different location of entrances
are given to understand the different of building configuration
affects spatial patterns. From the examples given, the pattern of
permeability created by the disposition of entrances. It was
described that the layout with single sequence of spaces offers little
in the way of community and privacy but much in a way of
intrusion. (Hillier, 1998) On the other hand, the building layout
with branched pattern provides a centralized space for community
and this pattern against intrusion. Hence, the differences of Figure 1.0: The study of
building layouts represent different space configurations; the space permeability in Space Syntax
Theory
configurations formed certain spatial patterns and these patterns
(Hillier, 1998)
applied to different patterns of human activity. (see Figure 1.0)

In sum, the study of permeability can be applied and described the situations of communal
spaces in relations to the effect of social interaction. First, the permeability of space can be examined
whether in internal housing block or external communal areas to describe why certain areas and
corners are lack of interaction between residents based on the level of visibility. According to the
above study, building layout with more entrances and openings creates more centralized spatial
pattern and more permeable space. The permeability increases the visibility of people to see each
other and therefore interaction can be happened. On the other hand, the building layout with lesser
entrances and openings creates more sequence spatial pattern and less permeable space. The low

4
permeability of space leads to low visibility between each other. Hence, communication and
interaction are hardly to be occurred.

2.2.2 The Study of Spatial Depth in Space Syntax Theory

Following with the study of permeability, the concept of space configuration is further
described with the spatial dimensions of depth to detect the social ideas in the spatial forms of
buildings. (Hillier, 1998) Here, three French houses with different layouts are given to differentiate
the depth and linkage between internal spaces and external spaces. In Figure 2.2a, 2.2b and 2.2c, the
geometrical differences in these houses have strong similarities in the configurations. This can be
seen easily by concentrating the space marked sale commune, which is the main everyday activity
space. In each case, we see that sale commune links directly to an exterior space. That is the least
depth in the complex. An interpretation is made that if the number of spaces that one must pass
through to go from a specific space to all other spaces; it has less depth than any other space in the
complex. (Hillier, 1998)

Figure 2.2a

Figure 2.2b

Figure 2.2c

Figure 2.0: The study of spatial depth in Space Syntax Theory.

(Hillier, 1998)

Therefore, the lesser the depth from the complex as a whole, the more integrating the space is.
Connectivity between each other is higher and chances for social interaction are higher as well. The
study of spatial depth from Space Syntax theory has become a factor to explain the connectivity
between internal and external spaces. In this aspect, the study of connectivity is applicable to

5
investigate the space linkages inside the building block as well as outdoor streets and alleys as the
spaces for social interaction.

3.0 Case Study on Klong Toey Community Housing Authority Flats, Bangkok

Research has been developed with the selection of a public housing compound as the case
study to observe communal spaces and examine how social interaction happened in the internal
housing block and outdoor communal spaces. Located along Chao Phraya River and under Chalem
Maha Nakhon Express Tollway in Bangkok, Klong Toey Community Housing Authority Flats is a
housing compound formed by 8 identical housing blocks, with 5 storeys height in each blocks.
Within this housing compound, different public infrastructures and amenities are provided including
a youth centre with sport facilities; government buildings like sub-division police station, sanitary
sub-division authority as well as shophouses as business purpose.

As this research is to study the qualities of communal areas as the spaces for social
interaction, the reasons to select public housing compound as the case study is based on the
flexibilities of space layout. The less gated layout in public housing compound either from internal
housing blocks to the external communal spaces or between the communal spaces are assumed to
provide different level of permeability and spatial depth. Therefore, public housing is interpreted as
an ideal typology with better social development than the others.

Besides, the research methodology applied is mainly based on observations. After several
times of field works, the period that observed presence with more people and more social interaction
was during evening session. This housing compound was happening during evening session due to
the presence of daily evening market as well as the sport facilities provided in the youth centre. Thus,
the observed data is only analysed based on this period of time.

4.0 Analysis on Spatial Distances

Based on the observations, social interaction is rarely happened in the internal housing block
especially at the corridor that acts as the linkage between an unit to the others. Compared to the
ground floor courtyard, communication and interaction between residents are seen to be happened
more in the internal housing block.

6
 By applying Edward T. Hall’s spatial distance theory, this scenario can be explained that
people are in intimate distance when they are in the small and narrow spaces like corridor and
staircases. One reason is that these spaces are mainly serving as access or circulations where people
only pass through without staying. Besides, corridors and staircases that condition people in intimate
zone make people feel uneasy and discomfort to communicate. Social interaction is unlikely to be
happened.

However, ground floor area which is wider and two corners that serve as the main entrance
are observed to present with people and interaction between each other. People are found seated and
talked to each other at the corners (also the main entrances) of ground floor area. This shows that
space that is larger or with reasonable width can allow communication and interaction because
people are conditioned in either the personal distance or social distance based Hall’s theory, in which
they are in a comfortable distance to start a conversation. So, chances of social interaction with are
higher.

Upper Floor Plan

Figure 3.1: Corridor in the housing block.

Ground Floor Plan

7
Figure 3.2: People are found seated and
talked to each other at the corners of
ground floor communal area.
5.0 Analysis on Space Permeability

As mentioned, the external communal areas are observed to present with more people and
more social interaction during evening session. The permeability study is analysed on external
communal spaces within the housing compound in which two zones of communal areas, Communal
Area 1 and Communal Area 2 are selected as the comparative analysis.

Based on the observations, Communal Area 1 is observed to present with more people and
social interactions are happened more than the other communal areas. This is because more public
entrances are exposed to the central road and this creates more centralized spatial pattern, led to the
ease of social interaction. (see Figure 4.1) According to Space Syntax theory, the building layout
with more entrances and openings creates more centralized spatial pattern and permeable space; the
higher the permeability of the spaces, the higher the visibility of one with another. Hence, social
interaction has higher opportunity to be happened. (see Figure 4.2)

Figure 4.1: Observation and the study of

permeability in Communal Area 1.

Figure 4.2: Analysis of centralized spatial pattern

in Communal Area 1.

Legend

The presence of people & social interaction

Spatial pattern

The exposure of public entrances.

8
 However, in Communal Area 2, less people have found in this area and therefore less social
interaction occurred. This is due to the less exposure of public entrances to the road and single
sequence spatial pattern is created, causing less social interaction. (see Figure 5.1 & Figure 5.2), In
relation to Space Syntax theory, more sequence spatial pattern and less permeable space is formed if
the building layout has lesser entrances and openings; the lesser the permeability of the spaces, the
lower the visibility of one with another. Thus, social interaction is hardly to be induced.

Figure 5.1: Observation and the study of

permeability in Communal Area 2.

Figure 5.2: Analysis of single sequence spatial

pattern in Communal Area 2.

Legend

The presence of people & social interaction

Spatial pattern

The exposure of public entrances.

9
6.0 Analysis on Spatial Depth

In Communal Area 1, the central road which acts as the main linkage between different
public entrances has seen present with more people. According to Space Syntax theory, spaces that
linked to a central point allows one to pass through from a specific space to all other spaces explains
that the space has less depth than the other spaces. (see Figure 6.1) So, the lesser the spatial depth,
the higher the connectivity between one space to the others. Chances for social interaction is
increased.

On the other hand, in Communal Area 2, the alley that has less linkage with the public
entrances has less presence of people. Based on Space Syntax theory, if less spaces are linked to
allow one to pass through from one specific space to other spaces, the area have more depth than the
others in the complex. (see Figure 6.2) Hence, the higher the spatial depth, the lower the connectivity
between one space to the others. The opportunity for social interaction is decreased.

Figure 6.1: Observation and the study of spatial

depth in Communal Area 1.

Figure 6.2: Observation and the study of spatial

depth in Communal Area 2.

Legend

Spatial Depth

The presence of people & social interaction

The exposure of public entrances.

10
7.0 Conclusion

As a conclusion, this study is performed to identify social interaction in communal areas of

residential complex by examining the spatial relationship to the users’ behaviour from sociology
perspectives and architectural space theory. Research has been carried out through the exploration of
3 different factors which are spatial distance theory from anthropologist Edward T. Hall as well as
Space Syntax theory from Bill Hillier focuses the studies of space permeability and spatial depth.
Through the observations and analysis, the conditions of social interaction that happened in Klong
Toey Community Housing Authority Flats has been examined and described based on the above
three aspects, emphasizing spatial relationship to human behaviour. Social interaction has seen to
happen more at the external communal areas but rarely in the internal housing blocks because
external communal areas which are wider produce more comfortable distance for interaction, and the
spaces that are more permeable and less spatial depth increase visibility and connectivity between
people. This led to the higher possibility for social interaction. Therefore, studies have shown that
social interaction in residential complexes is important to be examined through spatial aspects
especially from the perspectives of sociology and architecture space theory. In fact it can be a
practice to widen the explorations of spatial aspects towards different perspectives.

8.0 Bibliography

Hall, E. T. (1961). The Silent Language. Premier Books, New York.

Hall, E. T. (1969). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books, Garden City, New York.
Hillier, B., Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Hillier, B. (1998). Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge

University Press. Cambridge

Altman, I., Wohlwill, Joachim F. (1977). Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory
and Research Volume 2. Plenum Press. New York
Varoudis, T., Penn, A. (2015). Visibility, Accessibility and Beyond: Next generation Visibility Graph
Analysis. Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium
Mahdavinejad, M., Mashayekhi, M. (2012). Designing Communal Spaces in Residential Complexes.
ResearchGate, cities 333-339

11