HOW BUILT SPACES MEAN 359Interpretations of such meanings echo those of physical bodies and the cultural values at-
tached to their various parts. In many cultures height, broad shoulders, and an erect posture, in a
man, are read as signs of physical power and financial or social stature.^21 How much space a
building or other built space—an office, for instance—takes up is often read similarly as a state-
ment of power through taking up space. Building height is a common vocabulary element in this;
breadth—square footage—works in a similar way.
It is common in the United States and in other Western countries, for instance, to “read” the
top floor office as a symbol of its occupant’s high status within the organization. Humans “em-
body” vertical, erect bodies; Western society values reason and the rational, which are seen as
brain activities; brains reside at the topmost position of our bodies; and so we position quarters for
the heads of our corporations and organizations—those at the heights of hierarchy (itself part of
this conceptual configuration), control, income, and therefore economic, social, and organiza-
tional power—at the tops of our buildings. Such correlations play out in community and residen-
tial planning as well. In class discussions,^22 students familiar with Oakland, California, topography
and socioeconomic conditions will note the local distinction between the wealthier “hill dwell-
ers” and the poorer or working class “flatlanders.” Some correlate this privileging of “up” or
“top”-ness with God’s “residence” in the heavens.
People from cultural backgrounds other than the United States or Western Europe often inter-
pret spatial meanings in other ways.^23 An Indian colleague noted that executive offices in Indian
organizations are more typically located on the ground or second through the sixth floors (or were
in the 1980s when these particular observations were made). With little, no, or inconsistent elec-
tricity and nonexistent or unpredictable elevators, office space on floors easily accessible by foot
is more desirable than a grand view (Mazumdar 1988, III-145). Here, too, however, there may be
a body-centered, cultural, or meaning-focused explanation for such a design choice, one that
draws on Hindu traditions. The Upanishads relate that the center of human consciousness lies just
below a hand’s span from where the lowest ribs converge. Also, according to the legend, the
world (in the form of a lotus blossom) sprang from the god Vishnu’s navel while he slept. For a
culture that locates the soul in the center of the body and values it (rather than the head) as the
source of humanness, it makes less sense for corporate headquarters to be at the heights of build-
ings (Yanow 1993).
A Ghanaian student seconded Mazumdar’s analysis, indicating that there, also, having one’s
office on the highest floor would signal that the occupant was of relatively low status. She further
noted that only poorer Ghanaians lived in the hills because hill residents had to walk longer
distances from the downtown markets, carrying heavy bundles on their heads. Moreover, in Ashanti
culture, she said, gods are in the earth as well, and libations are poured to them on the ground. Her
American classmates’ association of height with the heavens and God and human social status
perplexed her.
Design “Gestures”
Whereas the analysis of design vocabularies treats their meanings in the context of the society or
culture in which they are situated, analysis of design gestures examines vocabularies in the con-
text of the immediate surroundings of the built space in question. Invoking the language of ges-
ture might appear to suggest that buildings or parts of them actively undertake to move, quite
aside from a more reactive swaying in strong winds or in earthquakes. In design terms, however,
buildings are treated as being in relationship to their surrounding spaces, built and otherwise.
Such relationships, whether affirming or negating, are suggested through the use of design