One of the key goals for the modernist project has been an ongoing search for efficiency in all areas of life, but particularly in the home. Layered into the contemporary home are a few hundred years of effort on the part of builders, designers, and corporations trying to smooth out the daily lives of its inhabitants into one, frictionless existence.
Social structures have traditionally informed the locus of this spatial research; a few examples are the intensive studies on kitchen layouts in the early 20th C; or the placement of groom’s quarters adjacent to the stables in earlier centuries. In recent years the search for efficiency in spatial layout has been based on the need to streamline the family experience in order to maximize individual production/leisure/consumption time, the triad of the ideal late capitalist existence.
Kitchens, while interesting, remain over-analyzed. Let us examine the corridor with this context in mind. How can a corridor effect the spatial efficiency and community of a home or workplace?
The corridor has a relatively recent existence, being invented around 1600 at Beaufort House, in England, in order to separate servants’ movement from the wealthier inhabitants. At this point, rooms could still have several doors, leading from one to an other. This separation slowly developed into complete hierarchy of space, with individual rooms adjacent to corridors, with a single door leading into each space. Robert Kerr’s “The Gentleman’s House” (1864) talks about the ‘wretched inconveience of thoroughfare rooms’. This slow spatial retreat of rooms from each other has been related to evolving relationships of our society to privacy, household structures of power and the prevailing social view of the body.
What happens when we think about the evolution of “the passage” and its relationship to community building? Maybe a little friction is required…
(referencing the image below) On the left is the passage-less space (the matrix system in archispeak, hilariously). On the right is the usual passage/room combination we are so used to experiencing (a series of servant/served spaces in archispeak). From top to bottom, the comparisons are:
movement in these spaces: 
the matrix layout: unintended meetings happen merely through movement; social space is created and a social community must be negotiated. The body is stimulated as it is forced to negotiate multiple spatial conditions
the passage creates transitory moments of connection, easily avoided by the maintenance of a direct gaze. Vision and the eye is bored by a single perspective
activity + movement:
the matrix: private activity is difficult, creating social norms around the sharing of tasks and ideas
the passage effectively segregates activities from the movement of the passerby. isolation, solitude and secrecy are encouraged
activity only:
solitary activity is possible in the matrix system, yet there is always a connection to others in the space.
private activity is the default in a corridor system, unless two individuals choose to inhabit the same space (who works in the corridor beside those who clean it?)
Perhaps it is time for a little community friction, caused by the implementation of more matrix-style spaces, complete with glowing numerical wallpaper.
What do you think? How does the spatial layout of your home or workplace impact your community?
note — this article was inspired by Robin Evans’ excellent essay “Figures, Doors + Passages” (1978). read it if you are curious about these sort of things.
Did you enjoy this post?
May we also suggest:
Building community centres without…community Our big studio project this term has been to design a community centre based off one of several long-span (read … Continue reading →...
Shelters form the Backbone of Marginalized Community One of the most inspiring things I’ve witnessed recently has been the generosity and general sense of hope implicit in … Continue reading →...
This doesn’t make any sense. Maybe you should write fro an architechture blog instead of a community blog. Its just and idead.
- Pete
thanks for the comment. hmmm…i’m not sure what to say, as i’m not quite sure what the second sentence is trying to say. is not architecture and the space we inhabit in our daily lives important to community building?
here is a four sentence version of the post for those that may not ‘get’ it:
our built environment has a relation to community and community building.
corridors and passageways are a part this environment.
do they help or hinder in the creation of community?
discuss.
Interesting post Stewart. I have to say, thinking about my space – it really could do without the corridor and blocked off kitchen (blocked by a wall) which separates the kitchen from the living room. Then again corridors and walls (as opposed to open spaces) do give us a place to put our things (ie books in a bookshelf, food in our cupboards, etc.).
So I must ask, if everything were open, where would all of these things go?
This model can obviously be transposed onto any community building paradigm. For example, when thinking about crime reduction in the urban setting, if there is a passage/room type layout of buildings and public spaces there are hiding spots for criminals. Open spaces, or the passageless model provides the ability for individuals to survey theirs and their neighbor’s property. Doesn’t this model compromise privacy? Of course it does! And it also fuels rumors and gossip! But doesn’t gossip create solidarity amongst strangers? Absolutely!
If no privacy = gossip
And Gossip = community building
And if no privacy = no crime
Then gossip also = no crime
And community building = no crime
And No privacy! = Community building!!!
Simple logic.
Take that Pete!
Hey y’all – interesting how we’re drifting away from the original, architecture-esque layer of this post here in the comments. But that only shows how much architecture does influence the way we live, down to the tiniest details. No use denying that. Well done Steward!
Oh, and Marie’s comment reminds me of a police-program we had a couple of years ago here in NRW. It had exactly that goal – to encourage people to gossip and thus to make neighbourhoods more secure. Because if you talk to people, you’re at least curious and maybe you even care. Anyways, you’re more bound to call the police if there’s something strange going on on their property. So gossip equals community equals security.
*The Gumbooteer formerly known as Pete
a minimalist would say that all of that ‘stuff’ should by done away with. being a pack-rat myself, i think otherwise. storage can be created through the use of low, partition-like space dividers. these could allow visual and oral communication without an actual ability to move between spaces. although maybe this would defeat the point of having a corridor-less space?
community building through gossip, now that is an interesting one. I guess the downside of gossip would be the creation of exclusivity within social groups. if you are not a part of the gossip-circle, do you feel excluded?
@Stewart: Just ask yourself how that one worked at school. There’s always the “cool kids” who don’t wanna play with you for whatever reason. Definitely a downside of “GossSec Inc.”. (c;
But still – like in the case of my parents’ in law… They live in a rather huge settlement block from the seventies, it looks like the projects although it’s all condos, yet still there’s only a a minimum of social interaction. When I see that, I’m always glad when I’m back here in our neighbourhood. Gossip all the way!
I understand now. Thank you.
- Pete