PAPERREF#8074Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumEditedbyM.Greene,J.ReyesandA.Castro.SantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:1IMAGINATIVECONTENTANDBUILDINGFORMINTHESEATTLECENTRALPUBLICLIBRARY AUTHOR: JulieBrandZOOK CollegeofArchitecture,GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology,UnitedStates email:jbrand3@mail.gatech.edu SonitBAFNA CollegeofArchitecture,GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology,UnitedStates email:sonit.bafna@coa.gatech.eduKEYWORDS: Aesthetics,Social,Visual,Theory,LibraryTHEME: ArchitecturalTheoryandSpatialAnalysisAbstractThe inquiry extends space syntax methodologies beyond descriptions of social content to assess howbuildingsengageimagination.WeproceedwithacasestudyoftheSeattleCentralPublicLibrary,designedbytheOfficeforMetropolitanArchitectureandcompletedin2005.Socialstagingisconstruedbydescribingroutes taken by users as they carry out specific, contrived tasks that are germane to the library program.Pointsalongtheseroutesaredescribedusingstandardspacesyntaxanalyticaltechniquesthatcharacterizethedistributionofpotentialviews,exposure,andaccesstodifferentpartsoftheprogram.Inthesecondpartof the analysis, the social staging is set against phenomenal staging, understood here as the underlyingstrategies by which the sensory phenomena of the building are presented to the builder users. We thenobservewaysbywhichthephenomenalstagingmodifiesthesocialrealityconstructedbythebuilding.The study thus makes the case for an analytical approach that distinguishes between two distinct sets ofarchitectural tasks that are often conflatedthose that support everyday activity, as captured by spacesyntax, and those that excite reflective engagement through imaginative perception, as described in thephenomenalstaging.Weproposethatthecriticalsuccessofabuildingmaydependnotonassimilatingthesetasksintoaseamlessform,butratheronexploitingthetensionthatisoftengeneratedbetweenthem.Asfaras supporting everyday activity is concerned, the Seattle library retains a typical genotypical structure ofreading areas organized about stacks. Phenotypically, however, it sets up an absorbing imaginativeexperience that decenters the visitor and excites exploration. In the last analysis, the critical success of theSeattle library lies in its capacity to tune the qualitative, subjective, conscious experience of visitors to thereciprocal relationship between the sense of self on display and the sense of self as onlooker and to thegenerallyfleetingexperienceoflifeinanurbansetting.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:2INTRODUCTIONSpace syntax, as a descriptive and analytic field, has investigated the nondiscursive social content ofbuildings, identifying how spatial configuration helps engender social relationships and is thereforeexplained by them. This inquiry extends the interests of social content to include descriptions of howbuildingsalsoengagetheimagination.Inrecentyears,therehasbeenincreasingdiscussionwithinthespacesyntaxcommunity on how space syntax mightcontribute to the explanation of visualform in architecture,andmoregenerallyonissuescentraltoarchitectureasadisciplineratherthanbuildingpracticeatlarge.Inthelastsymposiumalone,papersfromBafnaetal.(2009),Holanda(2009),Koch(2009),andPsarra(2009)raisedseveralinterestingissuesontherelationshipofarchitectureandbuilding,onhowspacesyntaxcouldcontributetoarchitecture,andonthevisualfunctioningofarchitecturethemesthathavepreviouslybeenbroached by Hillier (1996), Hanson (1994 & 1999), and Peponis (2005). In pursuing the way buildings aredesigned to engage the imagination, we intend to continue the ongoing dialog in those papers. We beginwiththepremisethatformalmanipulationcreatesimaginativecontentoverandabovethecreationofsocialcontent.Whatwewilltrytoshowishowimaginativecontentemerges,partlybutalsosignificantly,fromthetensionbetweenhowusersarestagedsociallyandhowtheyarestagedphenomenally.The inquiry is formed around a case study of the Seattle Central Public Library, designed by the Office forMetropolitan Architecture and completed in 2005. Social staging of users is inferred using standard spacesyntax analytical techniques. By convention, syntactical variables such as connectivity and integration areused to characterize the potential social life within a spatial setting because behavioral patterns oftencoincidewiththedistributionofthevaluesofthesevariables.Itisthereforelogicaltoexpectthesevariablestobeusefulincharacterizingtheexperienceofthesociallifeofthesituateduser.Wefocushereonthetaskorientedvisitortothelibrarywhoisneitheratouristicvisitor,noradailyinhabitantofthebuilding,suchasan employee. Since patterns of visual exposure are related to the perceived publicness of particularlocations, they can directly influence the social self that is adopted by the user in ways well described insociological literature (originating with Goffman, 1959; but also cf. Douglas, 1970). The term stagingdirectlyreflectsGoffmansdescriptionofthedramaturgicalperspectiveinsociallife.Procedurally,socialstagingisinferredherebyfirstdescribingcontrivedroutestakenbyvisitorsundertakingparticular tasks and then characterizing their experience based on the values of standard syntacticalvariables in the spaces at selected points along these routes. The values of these variablesvisualconnectivity,visualintegrationandmaximumradialshavedirect socialorperceptualinterpretations,andthereforethespacesateachpointcanbedescribedashavingdistinctsocialcharacteristics.Inthesecondpartoftheanalysis,thesocialstagingissetagainstphenomenalstaging.Phenomenalstagingischaracterizedbyidentifyingpatternsinhowthelibraryispresentedtothevisitorasaprogramofsensoryincidents.Thispartdevelopsfromourbeliefthatbeyondexposinguserstofundamentallyinterpersonalorsocial environments, buildings also expose them to an imaginative environment wherein the experiencingself is led to construct an imagining self in response to his or her phenomenal experience of the building,much in the same way that he or she is led to construct a social self.1 The evocation of an imaginativeresponseseemstodrivemuchcreativeworkinarchitecture.Imaginativeresponseis,inanycase,centraltothecasewetakeupinthispaper.1"Itisimportanttonotethatthisimaginingselfisnotcreatedbytheactivityofimaginativeengagementbutratherisassimilated[into]ourownextantsenseofself.Thesociallogicofbuildingsmaywellplayaconstitutiveroleinthecreationofasocialorrelationalself,butinimaginativeengagement,thevisualizedselfisourordinaryextensionalandhistoricalself(forlogicalconstraintsontheselfinthecontextofimagination,seeWilliams1973);weimaginativelyexplorewhatitwouldlike,forus,tobeinsuchasetting.Suchanimaginativeconceptionhasbeendescribedasrecreativeimagination(CurrieandRavenscroft,2003;seealso,Bafnaetal.2009).Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:3Whatwewanttostudyspecificallyishowthetwokindsofstagingoftheselfarehandledinthedesignofthe library. Much of the critical literature on buildings conflates the imaginative and social aspects ofbuildings.Insuchdescriptions,phenomenalaspectsofthedesignelicitimaginativeresponse;socialaspectsare assumed to be subsumed under, finetuned, or intensified by the phenomenal staging. We will try toshow that the two aspects do not need to operate in tandem. In the library, at least, part of the aestheticchargecomesfromthetensionbetweenthesocialstagingandthephenomenalstagingofthesituateduser.THESEATTLECENTRALPUBLICLIBRARYAs with other buildings and projects in of the OMA oeuvre,2 program is meant to be understood asgenerating building form in a particular way at the Seattle library. In this case, project architect JoshuaPrinceRamus describes the library as a specimen of hyperrational buildings, whose form is found bytranslating representations of program into built form (Joshua PrinceRamus). The irony of such anexplanationisthatthebuildingthatresultsfromthisprocessisnotatallrationalistinappearance.Rather,itisirregular,boxy,andcrumpledontheoutside.Ontheinside,anatriumisformedagainstaconcretecorethatabutsfloorplatesofvaryingdimensions;theentireinteriorisinterjectedwithabstractlyshapedmassesandsurfacetreatments.Image1.Buildingexterior.PhotobyBryanChang2TheParcdelaVillette,JussieuLibrary,andVoluntaryPrinsonersofArchitectureprojectsareotherexamplesoftheexplicitytranslationofprogramintoform.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:4Image2.Buildinginterior.PhotobyChrisSchroeerHeiermann.However,forallthevisualirregularity,abinarylogicreadilyemergesfromthebuildingsection.Theprogramis portioned out into two alternating types of platforms or floors, each with a correspondingprogrammaticdesignation. One programmatic type is termed function and characterized as stable andtheotherattractionandunstable(ElCroquis,2004).Functionalprogrammaticlevelsincludethebookstacks,meetingrooms,andemployeeandadministrationworkspaces.Attractionprogramlevelsincludereading, reference, circulation, and learning areas. Functions and attractions systematically differ in theirinterface with the vertical circulation systems, with the building enhancing incidental movement intoattraction spaces while limiting such ingress to the functions. For example, the multifloor escalatorsoriginateandterminateinattractionplatformsonly,altogetherbypassingthefunctionplatforms.Thereareadditional,iflessconsistent,differencesinspatialshapebetweenattractionsandfunctions,withattractionsopentotheatrium,andenclosingsurfacesmorelikelytobeslopingandaggregatedfromvarioussurfaces.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:5Image3.LabeledsectiondiagramIntheSeattlelibrary,thealternationsofthesectionareoverlaidonthedispositionofreadingroomsaboutthestacks,whichtypicallyoccursinlibraryplans.Thebuildingisonaninclineddowntownblockwithlowerand upper entrances opening to the first and third floors, both attraction platforms. The first floor housescirculation,thechildrensarea,andanauditorium,andthethirdisavoluminousreadingareatogetherwiththecoffeeandgiftshopsandthefictioncollection(pictures1stand3rdfloor).Thesetwolevelsarelinkedbya twostory chartreuse escalator that bypasses a floor of employee and book processing spaces. The nextescalator, which begins on the third floor, bypasses a closed mezzanine level of meeting rooms andterminates on an open mezzanine with reference and computer areas (pictures: closed and openmezzanine).Thefinalescalatorascendsfromthefifthfloorthroughfourlevelsofbookstacks,amultifloorfunctionplatform,andterminatesinanairyreadingroomslevelonthetenthfloor.Thefourlevelsofbooksstacks are ramped like a car park and are continuous with the tenth level reading rooms, but not the fifthfloorreferencearea.Theeleventhlevel,thefloorplateofwhichisoffsetfromthereadingroomsfloor,isthesocalled headquarters, another employeeonly, function space. There is a basic typological distinctionbetween functions, mainly corridor plans, and attractions, which are largely open plans. (pictures:stacks,readingrooms)Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:6 Image4.HHintegrationfloors1,3,4,5,7,and10.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:7SOCIALSTAGINGINTHELIBRARYWewillinfersocialstagingoflibraryusersbydescribingstereotypicalroutesforundertakingthreespecifictasks:checkingoutabook,attendingameeting,andmeetingafriendtoworktogether.Wewillthenassessconnectivity, maximum radials, and integration for select points along each path. For the purposes of thisinquiry,connectivitywillberelatedtoasenseofpublicness,asthegreaterthedegreeofvisualexposuretheless private the activities undertaken in a space will be (following Vialard & Bafna, 2009). Interpretingconnectivity as senseofpublicness by way of exposure picks up relevant distinctions between officecubicles and office rooms or corridors and lobbies. While this logic also registers in relatively closed areas,like the library stacks, such areas are not private in the same way that closed rooms are. We thereforediscuss connectivity together with maximum radials, which measure the depth of vision into surroundingspaces.Combiningmetricdepthwithconnectivityisexpectedtopickupdistinctionsbetweenthepublicnessoflibrarystacksandthatofclosedrooms.Highintegrationareasaremoregloballycentral.Suchareastendtobeperceivedasanchorspacesforwayfindingandorientation(Peponis,Zimring,andChoi,1990;HaqandZimring,2003),but,inthecaseofaweakprogrambuildinglikethelibrary,theyarelikelytoprovidegreaterunplannedencountersamongstvisitors,andsocanalsobecharacterizedassociallypublic(Grajewski,1993;Penn,Desyllas,andVaughan,1999).3In sum, our approach assesses publicness as it is both directly and indirectly perceived by building users.Directperceptionofpublicnessisassociatedwithexposureandiscapturedbymeasuringspatialformusingconnectivityandmaximumradials.Indirectperceptionofpublicnessisassociatedwithsocialencounterandmeasured using integration. Where direct and indirect forms of publicness conform to one another,perceptionsofthespatialstructureofthebuildingandofthelifewithinitwilltendtoreinforceeachother.Thereforeifagivenlocationinthelibrary,thepublicnessperceiveddirectlythroughthespatialformandthepublicnessperceivedindirectlythroughsocialencountercoincide,wearguethatthesenseofinstitutionalityand conformation to the library genotype at that location is enhanced. Here we emphasize Hillier andHansonsdefinitionofgenotypesasabstractrulesunderlyingspatialforms.Inthisformulationthespatialis,ofcourse,fundamentallysocial,andthereforegenotypesresonatewithinstitutionsasmechanismsofsocialorder.Procedurally,wehaveselectedpointsalongcontrivedtrajectoriesforthreepathsthatspanmultiplefloors.For each point, connectivity, maximum radials, and integration are each normalized as a percent of themaximumvalueforthefloor.CheckingOutaBookAstereotypicalpatternforcheckingoutabookwasinferredasfollows.Aregularvisitortothelibrarycomesinbythefirstfloorentrance,intendingtofindaparticularbook.Thoughtheelevatorisimmediatelyinfrontof the entrance, it would clearly require a wait. And why wait when just off to the right an escalatorperpetually beckons upward? At the top of the long escalator, the visitor crosses the third floor from thereadingareaintothefictioncollectiontothenextescalator,whichleadstotheopenmezzaninereferencearea.Exitingtheescalator,theuserapproachesaworkstationandfindsthecallnumberandfloorlocationofthebook.Thereisachoicehere,whethertotakeathirdescalatorintothemidpointofthestacksandwindupordowntheramptofindthebook,ortotaketheelevatortothedesiredlabeledfloor.Nowtheelevator3Weshouldalsonotethatinthestudiescitedabove,integrationandconnectivityvaluesarecalculatedusingaxialmaps.However,asmorerecentstudieshavefound(forinstance,Peponis,Bafna,etal.2007),thevisualintegrationmappingwhichweusehereisconsistentwiththeaxialmappingatthegrosslevelthatweoperateinthispaper.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:8seemsworththewait,asthevisitordoesntwanttospendallmorningwanderingupanddownthebooksspiral.Image5.Showingroute,syntaxvaluesandvisibilitypolygonsforgettingabookProceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:9Theconnectivitymeasurementsindicatethatduringthefirsthalfofthistrajectory,allthewayuptosettlinginattheworkstation,visualexposureisgenerallyhigh,indicatingthatthesenseofpublicnessandoftheselfasaparticipantinthesocialsettingofthelibraryarealsohigh.Thisexpansivesensecontractsdramaticallyasoneapproachestheworkstation,thenaccessestheelevatoroffashorthallwaythatisclosedatoneend.In the constriction of overview and exposure, these subtasks are treated more like work and less like thepublicpresentationoftheself.Forthisfirstpartofthetrajectory,thepatternsofmaximumradialsreflectaprogramthatengendersrelativelyshallowaccesstothefirstflooranddeeperaccessintothethirdandfifthfloors.Onceinthestacks,connectivityisveryhighatintersectionsformedbytheshelving,butextremelylowinthespaces between shelves, creating sharpdemarcations between highly exposed and highlycontained areas.Themaximumradialsconcurrentlyindicateasharpdropfromverylongtoveryshortsightlinesinthestacks.Whileonthefirstthreefloors,exposureandvisualaccesspromoteaconsistentsenseofbeingonview,inthe space of the stacks abrupt changes in both exposure and visual access stage surprising or startlingencounterswhereverylongmaximumradialsinareasofhighexposuredirectlycrossveryshortmaximumradialsinareasoflowexposure.Returningbyelevatortothegroundfloor,thecheckoutprocesshappensinaspaceofshallowvisualaccessandmoderatelyhighvisualexposure.Integration patterns for the same trajectory are somewhat more uniform and always above 50% of themaximumintegrationforthefloor,indicatingthatusersgenerallydonotfeelthemselvestobetoofarfromthe social center of the building. However, the locations specific to the task of accessing books (thecomputerterminal,elevatorslobbiesatreferenceareasandstacks,thestacksthemselves)aremarkedlylesssociallycentral.AttendingaMeetingA stereotypical route for attending a meeting is much simpler. Imagine a hurried visitorsomeone withplaces to be both before and afterward who enters on the third floor, walks directly to the back of thespace,andascendsanopenstairthatservesthefourthflooronly.Thevisitorproceedstoameetingroomandafterwardleavesbythesamerouteheorshecameby.Image6.Showingroute,syntaxvaluesandvisibilitypolygonsforattendingameeting.(continuenextpage)Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:10For attending a meeting, the connectivity percentages indicate a rapid dropping off of sense of visibility,exposure,andpublicnessasoneproceedsfromthestreetentranceonthethirdfloor,wherethereisgreatvisualcommandoftheroom,backtowardthestair,oneoftheleastvisuallycontrollingspacesontheentirefloor. Here we find a concordant dive in visual access as expressed by the maximum radials. Once on thefourthfloor,theuserstaysinamoderatebandofconstant,moderatevisibilityontheringofcorridor.Thesametrajectory,whenevaluatedforintegration,showsadropfromaveryhighcentralityatthethirdfloorentrance, followed by a quick drop off to a moderate position of centrality, then a hovering below the 50percentilefortheremainderofthetrajectory.Therearenoreversalsintheintegrationpatterns;onesimplymovesfromthesocialcentertotheperiphery.Themaximumradials,connectivity,andintegrationtendtomovetogetherfortheentiretrajectory.MeetingaFriendontheReadingRoomsFloorA regular visitor to the library enters by the first floor to meet a friend on the tenth floor readingroomslevel. The user waits for the elevator. The chain of escalators and associated spaces between the first andtenth floors is too great an investment of time and attention to even be considered.The user exits on thetenth floor, then winds down a ramping path around a raised plinth of restrictedaccess collections.Roundingthethirdturn,nearthetopoftheescalator,theuserseesadownwardslopingpathandthreeunwalled,openplan,terracedreadingareastotherightofit.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:11Image7.Showingroute,syntaxvaluesandvisibilitypolygonsformeetingafriendThe firstfloor portion of the trajectory, a short shot from door to elevator, is exposed in nature. Themoderatelength maximum radials indicate shallow views, and integration values are high. The tenthfloorportionofthetrajectory,bycontrast,showsgreatvariationinvisibilitylevels.Theexitfromtheelevatorandthe singleloaded corridor winding around the restrictedaccess collections are both relatively unexposed;however, near the top of the escalator as the user rounds the corner to see the reading areas, there is aburst of visual access, which contracts again as user approaches the workspace. The longest radials alignProceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:12with greatest connectivity and the greatest integration. The radials show a generally uniform increase ofdepthofvisionasonetheapproachtotheworkarea,withadiveindepthofvisionasonesettlesinatthework space. Throughout the trajectory, the values of maximum radials, connectivity, and integration moveinaconcordantway,indicatingthatthesenseofpublicnessandthesenseofsocialcentralitycoincide.SOCIALSTAGINGINTHELIBRARYInmostcases,thevaluesformaximumradials,connectivity,andintegrationriseandfalltogether.Wehavearguedthatthecovariationofthesevalueswilltendtoreinforcethelibrarygenotypeand,byextension,thesense of institutionality. When connectivity and integration covary, builtform publicness (as associatedwithconnectivity)andthesocialpublicness(asassociatedwithintegration)ofthebuildingcoincide.Promenade spaces for the public have been a common feature of American libraries throughout theirhistory (Chanchani, 2002). The Seattle library emphasizes the sense of promenade insofar as direct andindirect publicness patterns tend to conform to one another. Circulation into the attraction spaces,especially ingress by escalator, usually occurs in areas of high integration, high connectivity, and highmaximumradials.Bycontrast,thelocationsforlibraryspecifictasks,includingsearchingthecollectionsandretrieving books, are often relatively socially peripheral (i.e., low integration). Isovists taken at theworkstationpointsampledonthefifthfloor,thestacksontheseventhfloor,andthedeskonthetenthfloordo not overlap with the highest integration values, implying the highestintegration areas are one or moreturnsawayfromthesetaskareas.As far as social staging, it is reasonable to infer that users sense themselves as participants, rather than asspectators,astheirvisualcommandoftheenvironmentchangeswiththesocialcentralityoftheirposition.While undertaking tasks, users are not, for example, typically taking on large physical views from sociallyperipheralpositions.PHENOMENALSTAGINGINTHELIBRARYWhile the social staging of the user conveys a library genotype that is to some degree typical, the visualimpactofthelibraryispatentlyspecial.Thephenomenalexperienceofthelibraryconveysaspecificagenda,andthisagendamodifiesthesocialsenseofthelibraryasdescribedsofar.A note on the methodological approach here: phenomenological staging, which we wish to capture, isdifficult to describe in an objective sense. In being definitionally subjective, objective description ofphenomena from thirdperson perspective is not technically possible. In what follows, we give a personalaccount of the phenomenal experience of the building as a possible instance of how a subject mightexperience tendencies in the presentation of visual phenomena.We rewalk a trajectory following theescalators from the first floor to the upperlevel readingrooms floor, describing the phenomenaencounteredbythesituateduser.The first floor entry to the library opens off of Fourth Street. As viewed across the landscaped plaza, thelower part of this faade is doubleheight storefront glazing. Above the storefront, a very large, very deepvolume of folded faade projects horizontally over the plaza, rising vertically for the height of a couple offloors,thenrecedingoutofsight.Crossingbelowthefolded,reflectivefaade,eachentrantismultipliedbyProceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:13three, the original plus one reflection on each of the faades vertical and horizontal surfaces. One entersthe wide, shallow lobby of the first floor and is greeted by the flat face of a bank of elevators encased inconcrete, with relatively deep peripheral views, to the childrens area and the circulation desk area. Justaroundtheelevatorcore,theescalatortotherightcomesintoview,chartreuseandilluminated.Itisalongescalatorthattravelsuptowardatiltedpatchofglasscladsky. Images8,9and10.Buildingwalkthroughandassociatedplans.Image9bySarahC.CampbellTheescalatordepositsitspassengersonthethirdfloorinalarge,tentingexpanseboundedbyinwardtiltingglazedfaadethatjoinstherestofthebuildingataheightofthreestories,abovetwomezzaninelevelsthatoverlook the floor. Casuallyarranged seating, plants and the coffee and gift shops are arranged under thetilting facade, with bookshelves at oblique angles populating a lowceiling portion of the floor under amezzanine. Overall, the space seems animated by movement, across the floor itself and up and down theilluminated escalators and glazed core of elevators. The lower mezzanine level has a red faade with anobscurewindowthatthrowsintosilhouettepeoplemovingbehindit.Abovethisfaadeisarail,andother8109Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:14libraryvisitorsarejustvisibleontheothersideofit.Alarge,high,atrium,whichadjoinstothemezzanineononeside,hasawhitesurfacewithrepeatedbandsofgreenstripwindows.Itvisiblyopenstoalargerlevelnearthetopofthebuildingshortlybeforeterminatinginaskylight. Images11,12,13and14.Buildingwalkthroughandassociatedplans.Image14bySarahHouhgtonThe next escalator, perpendicular to and visible from the first, disappears into the mezzanine level. Itrequires one to cross the floor around a sunken auditorium. From the second escalator, one emerges intoanothernovelenvironmenttwofloorsup:alarge,raileddeckwithmetallicfloortilesandorange,black,andgray furnishings. The space is open, subdivided only by a set of upright trusses, columns, and the variousstair, escalator and elevator towers. Everything higher than eight feet is painted a chunky fireproof black;below that, columns are cased in white gypsum board. Long, fixed tables are configured to form an X inthemiddleofthespace.The escalator terminates toward the back of the space. Tables for study and workstations lie between thetopoftheescalatorandhigh,openspacesharedwiththepreviousfloor.Fromthisposition,thebacksideofthe illuminated escalator that provides access to the stacks ascendsto the top of the high ceilinged space.14111213Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:15The strangest thing about the escalator may not register at first; it is just one escalator, one going up, noothercomingdown. Images15,16and17.Buildingwalkthroughandassociatedplans.Image16byShoSeph.As one approaches the third escalator, it becomes clear that it is a very long escalator that punctures theblackceiling,thoughitsfinaldestinationcannotbeseen.Asonerises,glassedinoneitherside,thefloorslabmoves from the upper front to the lower rear of the visual field. The book shelves, perpendicular to themovinguser,riseandmovebehind,onebyone.Occasionally,apersonemergesintoview,movingalongadifferentplanethantheescalatorspassenger.Withthebuildingandfurniturealreadyinrelativemotion,amoving human is doubly as dynamic. After four floors, the escalator terminates, nudging its users into an15 1617Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:16airy and lovely series of terraced reading rooms, finished in relatively harmonious, naturalistic colors. Themetalofthecladdingispaintedapaleskyblue.Ifonewindsuptheramptothehighestpointinthepubliclyaccessible part of the building, one can see down the large light wellthe long, white, expanse of theatrium,therailingandmetaltiledfloor,theredbandoftheclosedmezzanine,andthefurnitureandlarge,foliageprinted rugs of the third floor. Turning back and descending via the books spiral, one finds it squatandcramped,almostneverprovidingviewsout,whichisoddconsideringtheentirebuildingiscladinglass. 182119222023Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:17 Images18,19,20,21,22,23,24and25.Buildingwalkthroughandassociatedplans.Image23byNicoleC.Engard.THERELATIONSHIPBETWEENVISUALANDPHENOMENALSTAGINGINTHELIBRARYThe series of escalators has taken the user through an unfamiliar, intriguing, and varied visual vista. Whilethefunctionalelementsofalibraryarefamiliarenough,thecolors,changesoffloorlevels,andorganizationdefamiliarize the overall setting. Perhaps most disconcerting is that there does not seem to be an obviousunderlying reasoning behind the organization of the visual environment. It all feels ad hoc and accidental,even as it works functionally. Phenomenally then, one has the sense of not being in institutionalenvironment,butratheranunsettledurbansetting,oratbestasettingthatisstilltakingshape.Severalstrategiesforthearchitecturaldeploymentofphenomenacanbeobserved.Oneverypowerfulandverytypicaldefamiliarizingdesignstrategyisthatmanypartsoftheprogramarevisuallyorganizedsothattheyareseenfromtheoutside,and,significantly,theirappearanceasaredstripfaade,orablackvolumeset in the free plan, or an atrium that is blankfaced save a few strips of windowsdoes not expressprogrammatic function. Occlusion of parts of whole shapes is another strategy with implications for howusersengagetheprogram.Forexample,portionsoftrajectoriesthatarekeytothefunctionalorganizationoftheplanoftendisappearbehindedgesorobjects,requiringuserstotravelintospacestheycannotfirsttakeprospectof.Thisisthecasewhenescalatorsslipbehindmezzaninefacadesorintonarrowholesinthefloor. As a sort of complement to this strategy, the building often frames users so that they are seen inincompletearcsofaction.25 24Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:18 Image26.Aphotoandlocationofthefirstoverlook. Image27.Aphotoandlocationofthesecondoverlook.Further,thereareanumberofkeyvisualexperienceswithinthebuilding,andtheirlocationdoesnotcovarywith the values of syntactic variables. We will describe two such instances. The fourth floor hosts acomfortable, striking, highly attractive overlook to the living room, giving a deep view to the space from arefugelike position behind the scrim of the window surface. The large window occurs along the ring ofcirculationonthefourthfloor,whichincludestwostairsandseveralblindhallways.Thesalientfeaturesofthehallwayarethatallitssurfacesareeitherredoraslightlyoffredpinkanditsreflexcornersarealmostall curved. The window overlook is the main respite from these features, over and above its inherentinterestasanonreciprocalviewthatis,avoyeuristicviewtothemainpublicspaceofthebuilding.Thewindow is located in an area of relatively low integration. It neither houses nor uniquely leads to anyProceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:19functionalarea.Itisperceptualinterestormerecircumstance,butnotsyntacticstaging,thatislikelytotakeavisitorthere.The same can be said for the overlook to the atrium from the tenth floor readingrooms level. The view isless about visual command of a sublime multiplication of parts, and more about a presentation of anirreduciblycompactdisplayofthepartsofthebuilding,anitemofdiagram.Again,thespotfromwhichtheviewisavailable,whichoccursatthetopoftherampingcorridorthatbeginsatthebottomofthesixthfloor,occupies a space of low social centrality. One comes to it by other prompts, such as signage and buildingmaps,oritspositionattheapexoftheramp.Inbothcases,theviewavailableislargeandnonreciprocal,but it is taken from a position of low integration. Such staging positions users as outsiders within thebuilding; they take on large, even global, views of the space from socially isolated positions. At the tenthfloor overlook, integration values are 22% of the highest value on the floor; on the fourth level overlook,theyare51%ofthehighestvalueonthefloor.Access to overviews occurs in spaces of low social centrality; the contrived routes, by contrast, show taskoriented users encountering socially and visually coherent spaces, with connectivity, integration, andmaximum radials covarying and reinforcing the character of the local spaces. When visual and spatialaspects reinforce one another, it would tend to mold users as participants. However, the points at whichoverviewsofthespaceareprovided,withtheirfundamentaldissonancebetweensocialcentralityandvisualcommand,stagetheuserasanobserver,asanoutsider.Wearguethatthepositioningofbuildingusers,sometimesasparticipants,sometimesasspectatorsprimesthem to explore the building. This point can be emphasized retrospectively; a characterizing quality of thebuildingisthatitexcitesexploration.Weproposethatthetensionbetweenthesocialcentralityofthespaceanditsvariousvisualattractorssomewhatoffthebeatenpathofthesociallycentralengendersasortofrestlessness, a sense that things are happening somewhere nearby. Partly, this may be the result oftriggering acognitive mismatch system.4 The visual environment of the library createsoverall unfamiliarityby frequently offering changing configurations of visual cues that can potentially trigger the cognitivemismatchsystemandsocreatemotivationforfurtherexploration.Thepointtonoteisthatthissenseofbeingdecenteredandtheconsequentrestlessnessisnotexperiencedasanurgeorcompulsiontoact,butratherasabackgroundmotivationandashiftinqualitativesubjectiveconsciousexperience.Wetheorizethattheuserregistersdecenterednessasacuriositytodiscoverwhatliesbehindthewall,orovertheparapet.Further,themaineffectofthetensionbetweensocialstagingandthephenomenal one is not just to instigate particular types of behavior (say, exploratory movement), but tobecomemoreattunedtotherawfeelofaspaceandonesroleinit.Following Seigel, the Western concept of the self has traditionally been conceptualized along threedimensions: the physical, or bodily; the relational, which is fundamentally social, and the reflective, whichhas to do with the individuals capacity for observing his or her own consciousness. The reflective self notonly reflects individual consciousness, but also worldly phenomena, including those that give rise to thebodilyandrelationalaspectsofconsciousness;itistheselfthatactivelyandconsciouslymakesuswhatweare. In the library, the reflective sense of self foregrounds the social. In bringing the social forward in a4OKeefeandcolleagueshaveshownthatcertaincellsofthehippocampusmapthevisualenvironment,andifanunfamiliarenvironmentisencountered,themismatchbetweentheexpectedmapandthemappingobtainedthroughsensedatatriggersexploratorybehavior(summarizedinOKeefe,1993;originalformulationinOKeefeandNadel,1978).Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:20setting that shifts users social roles, the reflective self becomes engaged in the task of defining and redefiningtherelationalself.Asavisitorexploresbothmundaneandunexpectedvistas,shapes,andvantagepoints,theroleplayedshiftsfromparticipantsteepedinthewebofrelationsengenderedbythebuildingtoreflectivespectator,whoisseparate from and aware of the relational nexus, and back again. This role makes the user an incidentalactor,bothparticipatinginandbutalsoatacriticaldistancefromthestaging.StagingusersinanexplicitlydramaturgicalrolealignswithanexpressionofthearchitectscriticalintentfoundinthevisualdescriptionoftheKunsthal5inSMLXL.Init,dialoguebetweenVladimirandEstragon,protagonistsoftheabsurdistplayWaiting for Godot, appears in large print over a sequenced series of fullpage photographs that provide atour of the building. Fine print below the dialogue instructs where to move and what to see. Noisy,absorbing,pointlesschatterunfoldsoverthequietimperativesofarchitecturalform.5TheKunsthalisanartmuseuminRotterdam,theNetherlands,designedbyOMAandcompletedin1992.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:21Images28and29.CapturesfromSMLXL.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:22Morebroadly,thestudymakesthecaseforananalyticalapproachthatdistinguishesbetweentwodistinctsetsofarchitecturaltasksthatareoftenconflated:thosethatsupporteverydayactivityandthosethatincitereflective engagement through imaginative perception. We propose that the critical success of a buildingdepends not on assimilating these tasks into a seamless form, but rather in exploiting the tension oftengeneratedbetweenthem.Thisisnottoclaimthatitisonlythroughtensionbetweenthesekindsofstagingthat an architect can bring the building into mind. Buildings, after all, offer us complex ways of interactingwith them. The tension between the two types of staging is one remarkably easy way of ensuring a workengagesthereflectiveself.Weareawarethatthestudyhassomekeylimitations.Methodologically,thereneedstobemoresystematicmethods for recording subjective impressions that are the basis for the description of the phenomenalstaging.And,moreworkneedstobedonetoestablish,eitherthroughobservationofbehavior,orthroughcarefully controlled selfreport data, the kinds of effects that phenomenal staging can have on visitors. Onboththesecounts,wehavereliedratherheavilyonfirstpersonobservationsfromoneofus.Thatlimitsthegeneralizability of findings, but is enough we feel to make a case for the systematic understanding of theimaginativefunctioningofbuildings.REFERENCESBafna,S.(2005).SymboliccontentintheemergenceoftheMiesianfreeplan.JournalofArchitecture,10(2),181200.Bafna,S.,Hyun,M.,Lee,H.,Antunez,C.,andYi,L.2009.Theanalysisofvisualfunctioningofbuildings,InKoch, D., Marcus, L., & Steen, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Space Syntax,Stockholm:TRITAARKForskningspublikation1,7.17.12Batty, M. (2001). Exploring isovist fields: Space and shape in architectural and urban morphology.EnvironmentandPlanningB:PlanningandDesign,28,123150.Chanchani,S.(2002).ArchitectureandcentralpubliclibrariesinAmerica,18871925:Astudyofconflictinginstitutionsandmediateddesigns.Unpublisheddoctoralthesis.Currie, G. & Ravenscroft, I. (2003). Recreative minds: Imagination in philosophy and psychology. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.ElCroquis(2004).OMA(I),19962006.131/32,3435.Madrid,Spain.Grajewski,T.(1993).TheSASheadoffice:Spatialconfigurationandinteractionpatterns.NordicJournalofArchitecturalResearch,2,6374.Goffman,E.(1959).Thepresentationofselfineverydaylife.NewYork:Doubleday.Hanson, J. (1994). Deconstructing architects' houses. Environment and Planning (B): Planning and Design,21,675704.Hanson,J.(1999).Decodinghomesandhouses.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hillier,B.(1996).Spaceisthemachine.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:23Holanda,F.(2009).Ofglassandconcrete.InKoch,D.,Marcus,L.,&Steen,J.(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe7thInternationalSymposiumonSpaceSyntax,Stockholm:TRITAARKForskningspublikation2009:1,43.143.15.Joshua PrinceRamus: Designing the Seattle Central Library. Retrieved July 18, 2011 fromKwinter,S.(1996).RemKoolhaasConversationswithstudents.NewYork:PrincetonArchitecturalPress.Koolhaas,R.(1978).DeliriousNewYork:AretroactivemanifestoforManhattan.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Koolhaas,R.(1995).Small,medium,large,extralarge:OfficeforMetropolitanArchitecture,RemKoolhaas,andBruceMau.NewYork:MonacelliPress.Koch,D.(2009).Architecturereconfigured.InKoch,D.,Marcus,L.,&Steen,J.(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe7thInternationalSymposiumonSpaceSyntax,Stockholm:TRITAARKForskningspublikation2009:1,58.158.11.Psarra,S.(2009).Theghostofconceivedspace.InKoch,D.,Marcus,L.,&Steen,J.(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe7th International Symposium on Space Syntax, Stockholm: TRITAARK Forskningspublikation 2009:1, 89.189.10.OKeefe,J.(1993).Kantandtheseahorse:Anessayintheneurophilosophyofspace.InEilan,N.,McCarthy,R.,andBrewer,B.(Eds.),Spatialrepresentation:Problemsinphilosophyandpsychology.Oxford:Blackwell,4364.OKeefe,J.&Nadel,L.(1978).Thehippocampusasacognitivemap.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Penn,A.,Desyllas,J.,&Vaughan,L.(1999).Thespaceofinnovation:Interactionandcommunicationintheworkenvironment.EnvironmentandPlanning(B):PlanningandDesign,26,193218.Peponis,J.(2005).Formulation.TheJournalofArchitecture,10(2),119134.Peponis, J., Zimring, C., & Choi, Y. K. (1990). Finding the building in wayfinding. Environment and Behavior,22,555590.Peponis, J.,Bafna,S., Bajaj,R., Bromberg,J., Congdon, C., Rashid,M.,Warmels, S., Zhang, Y.,& Zimring, C.(2007).Designingspacetosupportknowledgework.EnvironmentandBehavior,39,815840.Peponis, J. & Bellal, T. (2010). Fallingwater: The interplay between space and shape. Environment andPlanningB:PlanningandDesign,37(6),9821001.Peponis, J., Hadjinikolaou, E., Livieratos, C., & Fatouros, D.A. (1989). The spatial core of urban culture.Ekistics,334/335,4355.Seigel,J.(2005).Theideaoftheself.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Turner, P. A., Doxa, M., OSullivan, D. & Penn, A. (2001). From isovist fields to visibility graphs: Amethodologyfortheanalysisofarchitecturalspace.EnvironmentandPlanningB:PlanningandDesign,28,193121.Proceedings:EighthInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposiumSantiagodeChile:PUC,2012.8087:24Vialard,A.,&Bafna,S.(2009).ThestructureofchangeinmidtwentiethcenturyAmericanhouse.InKoch,D., Marcus, L., & Steen, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Space Syntax,Stockholm:TRITAARKForskningspublikation2009:1,130.1130.13.Williams,B.(1973).Imaginationandtheself.InProblemsoftheSelf,CambridgeUniversityPress,1973,pp.2645.