The MIT Press • Camiiridge, Massachusetts • London, England
Ordina
F o r m and C o n t r o l i n the B u i l t E n v i r o n m e n t N.
J. Habraken
• edited by Jonathan Teicher
I
Chapter I
Form, the Physical Order
The Physical Structure of Built Environment
II
13
15
Chapter 7
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 6
125
1.1 Live Configurations
16
7.1 C o n t r o l o f Space
126
32
7.2 Territory and C o n t r o l
128
1.3 Built Environments Seek E q u i l i b r i u m
26
7.3 Inhabitation and Territory
132
1.4 The Identity o f Agents
28
7.4 T e r r i t o r i a l Hierarchy
136
1.5 Dominance and Dependence
32
7.5 H o r i z o n t a l Relations Are Avoided
140
r.6 Control D i s t r i b u t i o n
36 Observing Territorial Structure
143
Recognizing Levels
41
8.1 T e r r i t o r i a l Structure i n D i f f e r e n t Environments
144
2.1 Levels and Intervention
42
8.2
2.2 Levels Revealed by Use
46
8.3 House and T e r r i t o r y
154
2.3 The Urban Facade
50
8.4 Public Space
158
Hierarchies of Enclosure
55
Territory and
163
Chapter 9
Urban Form as T e r r i t o r i a l Form
Buildings
150
3.1 Forms o f Enclosure
56
9.1 Street and House
164
3.2 A Classification of D w e l l i n g Modes
60
9.2 Territory and B u i l d i n g
170
3.3 A Hierarchy o f Enclosure Forms
64
9.3 W i t h i n the City Block
172
Changes in Enclosure Hierarchy
69
Gates
iBi
Chapter 1 0
4.1 Emergence o f a Level
Chapter 5
Territory
1.2 Levels
Chapter 8 Chapter 2
Place, the Territorial Order
r o . l Seven Gates
182
4.2 W i t h and w i t h o u t the F u r n i t u r e Level
78
10.3 T e r r i t o r i a l Gates
184
4.3 Disappearance o f a Level
82
10.3 Gates vi'ithout T e r r i t o r i a l Meaning
188
The Act of Building
87
In and Out of Territory
193
5.1 Assembly Hierarchies
88
II.I
194
5.2 Dominance Hierarchy and Assembly Hierarchy
92
r i . 2 Supply Form and D w e l l i n g
r98
5.3 Inside the Assembly Chain
96
I I . 3 Limitations o f T e r r i t o r i a l A u t o n o m y
202
Shifts in Territorial Structure
207
5.4 Traditions of Two Stage B u i l d i n g
100
5.5 Gravity Recognized
io6
Other Forms at Play
m
Chapter I I
Chapter 1 2
Supply Form and Territory
12.1 H o r i z o n t a l Shifts i n T e r r i t o r i a l D i v i s i o n
208
12.2 Vertical Shifts i n T e r r i t o r i a l D i v i s i o n
210
6.1 Supply Forms
112
12.3 Increase i n T e r r i t o r i a l Depth
214
6.2 Nets, Grids, and Webs
ng
12.4 Decrease i n T e r r i t o r i a l Depth
218
•
Territory
rather than studying agents directly I n observ-
Territorial Space D e f i n e d W h a t does i t mean to control space?
habitants.
and
motivations
o f individual i n -
Rather, i n focusing on how
the
Control of f o r m is a matter of transforma-
that represent agents acting on them. Territory
organization of parts i n the environment is gov-
w i l l thus be recognized as space i n t o w h i c h only
erned by territorial rules, we w i l l seek to deter-
i m p l y transformation o f space: to t r a n s f o r m
certain items may enter. The ability to move
m i n e how, based on the movement o f parts,
space requires acting on the material parts that
material things across borders is the ultimate
territorial boundaries can be deduced, I n short,
make that space. This i n t u r n means trans-
test of territorial control.
we are interested i n the overlapping relation-
f o r m i n g a material configuration—that is, con-
The act o f strolling down a neighbor's
t r o l l i n g f o r m . Yet control o f space is clearly
walk and r i n g i n g his doorbell falls w i t h i n nor-
distinct f r o m control o f f o r m .
mal
social conventions, and thus i t does not
Control o f space denotes the ability to de-
constitute a territorial violation. Sitting d o w n
fend that space against unwanted i n t r u s i o n .
uninvited o n the curb bordering a neighbor's
dis-
suburban lawn represents at most a m i n o r ter-
tinguishing such territory is fundamental to
ritorial incursion. The neighbor will most likely
inhabiting the earth. Territorial control is the
treat you as a guest, albeit an uninvited one. But
ability to close a space, to restrict entry It is per-
place your garbage can on his lawn, and he w i l l
haps the most instinctive way by w h i c h humans
express displeasure.
have learned to understand b u i h environment
C o n t r o l of Space
erences
tempt to h m i t our observation to material parts
t i o n o f f o r m . But control o f space cannot simply
Space under control is territorial, and
I
Again, we w i l i not i n q u i r e into the pref-
ing the control o f space, we w i l l similarly at-
(and also, m u c h earlier, naturallandscape}.
H u m a n behavior can surely reveal cases of territorial i n f r i n g e m e n t . But i n a study o f
The very act o f i n h a b i t a t i o n — o f occu-
built environment it is appropriate, once more,
pying a space and selecting what comes i n and
to focus first on the location and the movement
what stays out—is f u n d a m e n t a l l y territorial.
of inanimate material parts i n order to learn
I n what follows, the built environment is ob-
about territorial structure.
served as a territorial organization, as space under the control o f agents. We w i l i f i n d a distinct hierarchical structure related to the hierarchies
C o n t r o l l i n g Space and Form
of f o r m . I n the environmental game, players control spaces i n addition to configurations of f o r m .
Control of Space and of Physical Parts
Rules determine how parts are admitted or excluded f r o m territorial space. Generally speak-
Previously, i n observing live configurations and
ing, to exercise control o f a configuration, one
the levels defined by them, we examined the be-
had better be i n control of its space as well. But
havior of configurations under agents' control.
there are
exceptions
and
variations.
Under
certain conditions, i t is possible to control a configuration i n someone else's territory or to have one's territory w i t h i n another agent's Greaf Wall of China, near Beijing (page 123). 7.1 124).
Cairo, 1978~Home!ess shelter in a mosque (page
configuration.
ship between control.
physical f o r m and territorial
Territory
Form Replaces A c t i o n
for example, stones placed by the wayside dur-
fall w i t h i n the territory o f the party w h o erects
i n g colonial times throughout Massachusetts,
them; at other times they are shared forms
Territory is defined by acts o f occupation. Form,
w h i c h indicate the crossing over m u n i c i p a l bor-
straddling a boundary
as such, does not yet come i n t o play A corre-
ders. Today, stamped metal highway signs sig-
Landscaping i n the N o r t h A m e r i c a n sub-
sponding space f o r m e d by physical parts is not
nal the name of the jurisdiction being entered.
u r b represents an anomaly, carefully designed
required f o r territorial space to exist. A l l that is needed is an agent exercising spatial control.
Territory and Control
settlers
i n the
American
West
to avoid explicit boundary marks. The lawn is
"staked out" their claims w i t h sticks driven i n
open and unprotected—although often subtly
Purely territorial control w i t h o u t any i n -
the g r o u n d at the corners. Such signs, like
marked—to convey a sense o f affluence and
dication o f a spatial f o r m can be observed o n
m a r k i n g the corners o f one's territory o n the
freedom, an image o f the house standing free
the beach i n summer. Individuals or groups oc-
beach, symbolically replaced action. A token
i n the prairie, unbounded. Yet each boundary is
cupy part o f a planar surface. Unseen bound-
was placed i n preference to patrolling the invis-
k n o w n and vigorously defended by the neigh-
aries are observed despite the absence o f walls
ible border. The boundary was then read by
bors who share it. The lawn is regularly m o w n ,
or property stakes. C h i l d r e n and pets are re-
means o f its markers. Physical acts o f control
retracing the presumed property line on a con-
trieved on violating such boundaries. W h e n a
were only needed when, whether intentionally
tinuous lawn surface—a horticultural act con-
ball lands w i t h i n a n e i g h b o r i n g domain, it is re-
or by mistake, markers were unheeded.
firming
covered w i t h due apology.
=2
Early
Forms may not convey consistent territo-
the territorial claim. Rear side-yard
fences frequentiy appear as well.
As Edward T. H a l l and others have dem-
rial meaning. A fenced pen, f o r instance, is
Space read into f o r m and territorial con-
onstrated, personal space is a universal phe-
there to keep animals i n , not to keep trespass-
trol o f space are quite distinct. The heavy f r o n t
nomenon, although the particular dimensions
ers out: the territorial boundary lies elsewhere.
door, though clearly a boundary f o r m , is n o t
of such space are culturally determined.' Rea-
Walls and gates likewise divide space, and may
necessarily a territorial marker i n the suburban
sonable proximity i n one culture is i n t r u s i o n i n
or may not mark territory. Consequently, one is
house. The enclosure f o r m e d by the house
another. Personal space, as described by Hall,
never sure whether the untested m a r k e r — a n d
shell, w i t h its f r o n t porch and entry, is not the
has strong territorial connotations.
its i n t e n t — i s territorial. I f so, is i t backed by
territorial
Territory likewise represents the inhabi t i n g and controlling agent's spatial extension
real enforcing power? Forms that seem to indicate territory are
boundary.
The
territorial
bound-
ary, as determined by the transfer of surveyed land on w h i c h the house is buUt, exists some-
But territory cannot be maintained
constantly tested. W h e n no response follows a
merely by gestures and body language. Artifacts
boundary incursion, i t becomes evident that a
I n a similar way, territory historically
may serve to represent the bounds o f control
marker is just a stone: o f historical value per-
ranged far beyond the turrets and gates o f a
exercised. We tend to mark our territory by to-
haps, but indicating no "live" territory. Bound-
town's walls. I t included the pale o f settlement
kens. Such indications are usually read easily
aries may then be crossed at w i l l .
around the town, a realm w i t h i n
o f self
by others, w i t h o u t error: we ah understand territorial meaning i n the positioning o f objects.
Only the marked boundary backed u p by real control is taken seriously.
where at the periphery o f the lawn.
untamed
nature that was frequently cultivated by the citizens, but at other times just remained an uncul-
Even o n the beach, we see the beginnings o f de-
tivated claim. The m u n i c i p a l boundary
marcation o f turf: chairs, towels, beach bags,
marked w i t h a stone at the wayside and other-
and other belongings are placed strategically to
Sheltering Form vs. T e r r i t o r i a l Claim
claim space.
was
wise established by legal deed and by custom. I n t i m e o f war, however, open land w o u l d
The most basic territorial demarcations
Varied customs and laws deal w i t h erecting and
be abandoned. A t the first sign o f attack, the ter-
are n o t waUs, fences, or other f o r m s of enclo-
m a i n t a i n i n g the c o m m o n boundary between
ritorial line w i t h d r e w behind the fortification
sure, but the simple stone or stake that may
neighbors. Fences, walls, or plantings usually
walls.^ Once danger or siege had passed, the ter-
mark the t u r n o f a boundary line or where a
mark property bounds. These f o r m s sometimes
ritory w o u l d again expand. Individual claim
path crosses that boundary There stifi remain.
12 9
was again laid to customary boundaries, either
ignored: it is subjected to interpretation, spa-
by the act o f cultivation or by other assertions
tially and temporally I n the examples cited above, street wall
of control, Throughout ary shifts, actual
the
territorial
physical f o r m s
bound-
and sidewalk curb f o r m a m^argin, a zone w i t h i n
remained
which the boundary may move. The actual territorial boundary is indicated not by the b u i l d i n g
constant.
but by lower-level configurations and parts. The shop, for instance, leaves part o f the sidewalk
Shifts in T e r r i t o r i a l Claim
free f o r passage and positions its boundary
Temporary occupation of sidewalk space is
termined by custom, practical use, and occa-
c o m m o n ; f o r commercial uses, i t is universal.
sional negotiation.
somewhere between b u i l d i n g and road as de-
Sidewalk occupation varies f r o m placing dis-
I n the corridors o f elegant apartments as
creet signs to indicate restaurant entrances, to
well, inhabitants may place potted plants, door
actually displaying wares i n f r o n t o f a shop w i n -
mats, and umbrella stands i n f r o n t o f their en-
dow, to creating sidewalk cafés.
tries. Their claim, paralleling the shopkeeper's,
Hole-in-the-wall
may
literally
describe
is understood and respected as an identification
shops i n many ancient cities, as i t has since be-
of territory I n both cases, the m a r g i n created
fore the t i m e o f the Roman taherna and M i d d l e
softens and articulates the razor-thin line o f de-
Eastern souk {see figures 15.2 and 8.4). U p o n
marcation offered by the architecture.
opening, the shop door is unlocked. The shop-
I n these ways, we act out s h i f t i n g spatial
keeper then extracts wares and places t h e m on
claims i n relation to stable f o r m . Territorial
the sidewalk. A cloth may span overhead to pro-
boundaries are established by acts. Such acts
vide shade, f u r t h e r expanding the sidewalk
usually seek stable f o r m s to relate to, i f not al-
claim by an act o f occupation.
ways to abide by
Such practices are not restricted to exotic climes. Sidewalks are habitually used by M a n hattan's greengrocers,
as well as by any vari-
ety o f shops l i n i n g Canal Street. I n all cases, u n m a r k e d exterior boundary lines extend the assumed property lines w i t h i n the party walls between shops. The territory withdraws back behind a modest storefront by sundown, when the shop closes up and all its wares are stored for the night. W h e n the shopkeeper leaves f o r home,
so too does the power to sustain
a
wider territory Thus b u i l t f o r m may suggest territory but i t is the ongoing act o f occupation that fixes the actual extent o f the claim. I n playing the territorial game, the more permanent f o r m is not
A r c h i t e c t u r a l Form I n t e r p r e t e d by
as corridors were u n k n o w n or rarely used.
Inhabitation
Within
an
architecture
that
offered varied
spaces o f power and dignity, people settled i n t o The features o f every f o r m , natural and built,
daily life, creating places to sit, to eat, to sleep.
offer potential territorial boundaries.
The Gothic Venetian palace, the Enghsh manor,
Rivers
and m o u n t a i n ranges are natural invitations f o r
and many vernacular house types similarly of-
boundary lines. But as any map reveals, they are
fer clearly articulated architecture, and spatial
not the ultimate determinants of boundaries:
organization f i r m l y established by the enclos-
neighbors adopt borders
ing f o r m s , w i t h o u t strictly d e f i n i n g a specific
along geographical
features only when they serve the prevailing balance
o f power. Architectural and
space f u n c t i o n i n m u c h the same way, o f f e r i n g an articulated context on w h i c h inhabitants i m pose territorial interpretations.
7-3
Inhabitation Territory
and
program f o r any given uses.
urban
The early-seventeenth-century Dutch canal house (figure 17.3) exhibited a range o f rooms. Their spaces were large by current standards, d i f f e r i n g i n characteristic shape, height,
Built f o r m plays a dual role relative to ter-
character o f light, and so on: the architecture is
ritory. On one hand, humans express territory
not neutral. The entry hall has a very h i g h ceil-
explicitly—building wails, m a k i n g gates, and
ing. I t is l i t by t a ü windows, w i t h a mezzanine-
placing marker stones. O n the other hand, we
like space behind. Upstairs, ceiling heights
draw i m p l i c i t l y understood territorial bound-
vary again.
aries as custom and inhabitation dictate, w i t h i n
I n contrast to dramatic sectional differ-
the artificial landscape o f the built environ-
ences between rooms, the plans r e m a i n rather
ment. Often, as i n the shopkeeper's claim o f
generic. We cannot read functions i n r o o m size
sidewalk space marked by the placement o f
or location, For instance, the oversize space that
wares, territorial boundaries are drawn by set-
accommodates
ting lower-level objects i n relation to architec-
sleeping alcove, a b u i l t - i n bed closed o f f by cur-
tural f o r m . Territory interprets architecture, but
tains. The sleeping alcove is an added configu-
by no means i n strict obeisance to i t .
ration w i t h a dedicated f u n c t i o n , i n the m a n n e r
a kitchen may also contain a
o f fireplace and window. Neither the alcove nor the h a l l i n w h i c h i t was b u i l t constitutes what
Space and Function
we now call a bedroom.
We are so conditioned to label every r o o m by
types rarely assumed f u n c t i o n names:
Historically spaces i n vernacular house mezza-
f u n c t i o n , i n conversations and floor plans alike,
nine, hall, attic, cellar, stoop, and porch do not de-
that i t has become d i f f i c u l t to understand that
scribe functions. Actions and f u n c t i o n s i n the
people instinctively settle b u i l t space. Yet inhab-
b u i l d i n g were linked not to specific rooms or
itation remains fundamentally territorial, not
spaces as m u c h as to specific attributes or con-
functional.
figurations
present; fireplace, type o f window,
Ancient palaces offered progressions of halls o f great character, yet devoid of any f o r m a l indication responding to specific use,
Users
passed through space after space i n succession.
7.2
Venice—Gothic palace floor plan, Illustrating dual
entry from canal and street After Maretto.
rived or projected f r o m a single p o i n t i n time.
doors giving onto street or backyard. Such attri-
w i t h spatial character. Specific locations f o r the
butes encouraged certain uses by o f f e r i n g a fit
daily f u n c t i o n s of life, w i t h all o f their h u m a n -
Function-specific spatial translation then gen-
location: one w i t h w a r m t h , light, a view to the
size territorial claims, were not predefined. Ter-
erates the i n i t i a l f o r m diagram. Rather than
street, a place to withdraw. Each architectural
ritorial boundaries
individuals and
suggesting broad architectural possibility f o r
element invited small acts o f settlement, w h i c h
groups of people were accordingly more com-
inhabitation, the resulting f o r m may seek to
created territorial zones w i t h i n the large rooms.
plex and fluid, far less dependent on walls and
l i m i t capacity to the one f u n c t i o n that is i n -
Thus, architecture supported inhabita-
doors, than those w h i c h m o d e r n f u n c t i o n a l -
tended, i n an approach that ignores the iterative
i s m supports.
nature o f the process o f m u t u a l self-definition
tion by o f f e r i n g a varied topography o f spaces
between
o f f o r m and inhabitation.
and f o r m s . A t times, the very entities to w h i c h
The historical absence o f f u n c t i o n a l spec-
people Hnked their activities—fireplace, w i n -
ificity i n architecture was by no means attribut-
Each act o f settiement relies on articu-
dow, sleeping alcove, and so on—were them-
able to poverty o f means or o f inventiveness.
lated f o r m to stimulate f u r t h e r interpretation.
selves hke lower-order f o r m s , i n h a b i t i n g the
Reading the due de Saint-Simon's
Given the increasing fluidity and variety o f con-
larger b u i l d i n g .
m e m o i r s , we conclude that even i n l i f e at Ver-
temporary life, the functionalist approach may
sailles, the richly decorated and generously ap-
prove to be a short-lived phenomenon. Inhab-
portioned spaces defined n o t h i n g m o r e specific
itation remains fundamentally territorial, and
than a regal context.^ Smaller-scale settlement
architecture may r e t u r n to the articulation o f
came
space that is open to acts o f inhabitation.
T e r r i t o r i a l Occupation
from
later
decisions
and
elaborate
territorial
I n the Pompeiian house, cultural and cosmo-
claims, supported by f u r n i t u r e and
logical f u n c t i o n dictated that the
smaller
ancestral
utensils. The four-poster bed and chair were
shrine be placed on axis w i t h i n the a t r i u m , i n
not merely f u r n i t u r e placed i n a private space:
an area m a r k i n g the transition to a more private
they created private space. As a means o f inhab-
zone o f the house, the tahlinum.
Yet that niche
itation unto themselves, they claimed territory
also served as reception area and repository of
that frequently occupied only part o f a large
f a m i l y mementos (see figures 12.2 and 15.2).
room.
The Chinese ancestral shrine is located i n
I n perceiving acts and objects—no less
a similar position, this t i m e on axis w i t h the
than walls and doors—as territorial dehnea-
center o f the pavilion located at the rear o f the
tions, we begin more f u l l y to understand elabo-
m a i n courtyard. This pavilion was also where
rate salutations, compliments, bows, and other
the f a m i l y gathered, where visitors m i g h t be en-
customary gestures. These inordinately com-
tertained, where meals m i g h t be shared. A t the
plex social acts also represent probings, as-
same time, i t also served as the daytime abode
sertions,
for the patriarch o f the house. Such m u l t i p l e
boundaries,
and
readjustments
both
of
invisible
spatial and psychological.
capacity f o r varying use was intrinsic to the ar-
People populated Versailles's vast halls as they
chitecture; i t d i d not result f r o m p r o g r a m m i n g
w o u l d have populated a landscape, strategically
multipurpose space.
positioning themselves and their f u r n i t u r e to
The n o t i o n that f o r m should precisely accommodate inhabitation i n a tightly engineered
claim and domesticate i t and accompanied by no less strategic gestures and language.
and o p t i m i z e d fit—that i t m u s t m i r r o r or be
The contrast w i t h contemporary func-
molded by a p r o g r a m — s i m p l y did not exist i n
tionalism is stark. Current architectural prac-
prior epochs. The architecture o f the large me-
tice first formulates and fijces highly specific
dieval hall, rustic barn, or palace defined f o r m
program prior to design. The program is de-
Terri to ry
A n Asymmetrical Relation
though the landlord may refuse to let pets i n
are, they all are contained w i t h i n the same, con-
his house, and therefore into the boarder's
stant territory A.
Territorial control is the ability to exclude, to
r o o m , the boarder also maintains the right to
shut the door, selectively a d m i t t i n g only who
exit her r o o m any time, to enter the landlord's
and what we desire.
space and proceed toward the exit door, to enter
But while territorial power can legitimately shut restricted
out, it may not confine. U n -
freedom
to
exit
is
Situations o f variable territorial depth can be
implicitly
understood. Conversely such restriction repre-
depicted, adapting the d i a g r a m m i n g technique
Hierarchy Based on Inclusion
o f figure 7.3. Figure 7,4 adds included territories C w i t h i n territory B. Territorial depth is
sents a rude and unconventional act. Under
A
Territorial
Hierarchy
T e r r i t o r i a l Depth
the street.
many circumstances, i t is illegal. Thus the cur-
Territorial organization is f o u n d e d on the prin-
measured by the number o f boundary cross-
few represents an extraordinary exercise o f
ciple o f inclusion w i t h i n other territories. A
ings (indicated by arrows i n figure 7.5) needed
power: negation o f the order established by ter-
simple diagram presents the basic territorial
to move f r o m the outer space to the innermost
ritorial convention.
situation.
territory.
The relationship existing between spaces
Given the territory o f a boarder, a rented
o n opposite sides o f a gate is therefore asym-
room that is i n t u r n w i t h i n a house included i n
metrical. One may always exit: f r o m b u n k bed
the larger territory o f a neighborhood, i t is clear
i n t o bedroom, f r o m bedroom into house, f r o m
that the landlord's territory. A, i n figure 7.3 en-
Private and Public Space
house into street, f r o m city into surrounding
compasses the boarder's r o o m , B. The total ter-
countryside. But m o v i n g i n the reverse direc-
ritory o f the house—the s u m o f space behind
and the lot converted into a public playground,
tion, one is subject to scrutiny at each door of
the f r o n t door—remains constant,
whether
the total size o f neighborhood A does not i n -
Should house B i n figure 7.3 be demohshed,
one
one, two, or no rooms are rented. The boarder's
crease. The neighborhood, as one territory, ex-
pleases. Strangers seeking admission to a com-
r o o m is part o f the larger territory w i t h i n w h i c h
hibits two kinds o f space: space occupied by
p o u n d may be refused. Once granted entry into
it constitutes an included territory.
houses (B) and space not so occupied (A m i n u s
gate, unable to simply enter wherever
the street beyond the gate, they may not ran-
I n the same diagram, A may represent
domly enter any b u i l d i n g . Moreover, permis-
the neighborhood or t o w n and B the house i n
houses w i t h their lots private
sion to enter a given house does not convey
it, Again, no matter how many houses there
definitions o f private and public are illusory, as
B). We tend to call the latter public space, and space. But fixed
permission to enter any bedroom, nor to occupy any desk or bed, This asymmetry imphes hierarchy Territories situate themselves w i t h i n larger territories;
conversely
they
may
contain
other
territories. Thus the town, w h i c h is situated i n
7.3
The territorial principle of inclusion—The existence
of included territories in A also results in the presence af public and private spaces there.
the county contains the house. The occupant of the house may accept a boarder, i n w h i c h case one r o o m becomes an included territory w i t h i n
A
A
A-B public space
the house. At each boundary the asymmetry holds. Someone living i n a boardinghouse maintains the right to shut the door o f her r o o m : even the landlord must ask permission to enter. A l -
Bl
+
B2
B3
B1
B2
B3
B private space
^37
B1
l i n g higher levels dominate agents controlling
A
A
lower levels.
1 B2
B1
B2
83
Cl
Dominance
B3
B2
i n hierarchies
o f f o r m is
manifested i n the ability to transform, f o r c i n g Cl
C2
C2
lower-level configurations
to adjust
transformation. I n hierarchies
to
that
o f inclusion,
dominance is expressed by refusing admittance to included territories. Goods and parties canTerritorial inclusion occurring in increasing deptil—
not pass through en route to lower-level terri-
Territory B may include territories C, resulting in tiie pres-
tory. Massachusetts does not admit handguns
7.4
ence of public and private spaces in B.
into its commonwealth; therefore, citizens may not transport firearms across its border to their homes. I f a landlord does not admit cats i n his house, the boarder cannot keep a cat i n her
becomes
clear
i n examining
situations
of
vatc space is that w h i c h is occupied by included
room: it is contraband.
territories, and public space is whatever remains
W h e n higher-level agents control what
The terms are quite relative. I f a hotel
after such inclusion. W h i l e territory itself is
goes into included territories, included agents
guest quits her r o o m and joins a colleague i n
neither pubhc nor private, each territory con-
must, as a rule, accept the imposed Hmitations
the foyer, she clearly enters pubUc space. W h e n
tains spaces that are public, private, or both.
on what filters through the higher level.
she exits the hotel, she again enters public
A territory can simultaneously occupy a private
space. A t the end o f the day, she returns. Step-
space, included i n a larger t e r r i t o r y and contain
p i n g out o f a cab, she leaves the city streets and
public space, relative to its o w n included territo-
Moving Through the Territorial
passes t h r o u g h the hotel's doorway, r e t u r n i n g
ries, as is the case w i t h a gated community.
Hierarchy
greater territorial depth, as i n figure 7.5,
Finally there is a clear distinction be-
to the foyer: this t i m e , the foyer represents pri-
tween the designation of space as private
vate space, relative to the street.
and
A l l space is continuously hnked by the com-
The fact that privateness and publicness
the degree o f privacy it affords. The first t e r m is
bined principle o f selective entry and
are not static conditions causes m u c h confu-
territorial, the second is not. Neither backyards
stricted exit. I n m o v i n g f r o m one place to
sion. Architects and planners confronted w i t h
w i t h o u t fences nor bedrooms w i t h o u t w i n d o w
another, we go freely up the territorial hierarchy
territorial depth tend to classify space as pri-
curtains may a f f o r d m u c h privacy But both
and then d o w n again somewhere else, where
vate, scmiprivatc,
spaces are clearly private, relative to street and
semipublic,
and public. I n fact,
whether a given territorial space is private or
alley.
we may be permitted to enter. I n visiting a neighbor, one typically steps out the door, up into c o m m o n public space, then d o w n again
public depends entirely on one's perspective: the same space is simultaneously
unre-
A
through the neighbor's gate, as one is admitted
private to
those not yet admitted and pubhc to those f r o m
Territorial and Form Hierarchies as
included territories, who are free to enter at all
Control Hierarchies
back into a more deeply embedded territorial level. There are good reasons, therefore, w h y
times.'* By observing a certain disciphne i n termi-
Like the Order o f Form, the Order o f Place is a
nology we can avoid misunderstanding. Ter¬
control hierarchy I n f o r m hierarchies, we con-
ritory refers to a u n i t o f spatial control. Private
t r o l physical parts and configurations o f parts.
and public
refer to space, but not to territory.
I n territorial hierarchies o f inclusion, we con-
W i t h i n t e r r i t o r y we find two kinds o f space: pri-
trol space. I n both hierarchies, agents control-
landlocked countries are disadvantaged. They lack access to the highest level o f territory: to the public space o f the open seas and their unrestricted skies, and to all o f the realms that those seas and skies touch.
7.5
Territorial deptii—The territorial depth of A. as
shown In figure 7.4. Three crossings are needed to move from outside A to the deepest included territory
Territory Precludes H o r i z o n t a l
abutting neighbor's backyard t h r o u g h a side
Interaction
gate—-is an i n f o r m a l and i n t i m a t e exception. I n short, when the higher-level configu-
In abstract diagrammatic representation, "ver-
ration does not separate live configurations o n
tical" relationships
the lower level, territorial structure w i l l . The
create hierarchy.
zontal" relationships
i n no way
"Hori-
determine
separation has no technical or f u n c t i o n a l ratio-
f o r m a l structure. But i n a real w o r l d composed
nale. I t is a matter o f control, Territorial order
o f physical parts, the horizontal is not so easily
maintains vertical organization where physical
discounted. Neighboring territories abut, and
order leaves o f f
one's neighbor is frequently closer t h a n the public street. We have already observed that dominance and dependency are unpredictable
Large-Scale Territorial Boundaries
and inherently unstable i n horizontal interaction among configurations (see chapter 1.5).
b u i l t environment that horizontal territorial
for instance, is estabhshed by confinement.
relationships become unavoidable. Unlike the
Thus, city blocks segregate groups o f houses;
vertical gate connecting private and public
rooms f o r m e d by p a r t i t i o n i n g segregate con-
space, gates between nations are strictly sym-
o f f u r n i t u r e . But some same-level
metrical. Goods flow over borders i n both direc-
configurations inevitably find themselves shar-
tions, regulated by customs officers. I n contrast
figurations
Horizontal
Relations
Are Avoided
It is oniy at a scale far above the perceptible
Dominance among f o r m s o f enclosure,
Buildings share available space
to vertical gates, under the control o f a single
w i t h i n the city block. Likewise, w i t h i n a r o o m
agent who determines what comes i n , hori-
shared among co-workers, several live configu-
zontal gates open only w h e n parties on both
rations o f f u r n i t u r e may be f o u n d . W h e n con-
sides agree. Otherwise the boundary remains
figurations on the same level relate horizontally
closed.
ing
space.
the rules o f territory take over, c o n t i n u i n g sepa-
Horizontal
territorial
traffic
between
ration by means o f boundaries. H o r i z o n t a l ter-
countries spawns elaborate procedures o f ex-
ritorial boundaries may be invisible, but they
change and m u t u a l control, as well as frequent
nonetheless f o r m an impenetrable membrane,
disputes. Nations may force or i n t i m i d a t e others to open gates: Finland, d u r i n g the cold war,
preventing configurations f r o m interacting, O f t e n there exists no physical constraint
was i n no position to refuse entry to Soviet
of gravity enclosure, or supply network to pre-
goods. But usually gates open by m u t u a l con-
ter-
sent European countries are currently involved
ritories. Yet instances where gates connect two
i n a prolonged process o f permanently open-
clude
horizontal
connection
between
territories horizontally or where configurations
ing up borders while m a i n t a i n i n g territorial
on d i f f e r e n t sides of a territorial
autonomy.
boundary
interact directly are few. A b u t t i n g houses along
But to r e t u r n to the experiential scale o f
the street frequently t u r n bUnd walls toward
place, far removed f r o m the scale o f nations:
one another. I n suburbs, trees, shrubs, lawns,
built f o r m reinforces e q u i l i b r i u m where people
and other outdoor elements are confined w i t h i n
settie together. A t the scale o f h u m a n inhabita-
invisible setback lines. Crossing a horizontal
tion, territory serves to segregate what physical
b o u n d a r y — f o r example, directly entering an
f o r m leaves open.
