360 ANALYZING DATA
vocabularies: recapitulating the roofline, materials, or colors of a nearby building is seen as giv-
ing the nod, metaphorically, to spatial predecessors (whether historical or present) and, through
the use of complementary design elements, seeking to take a place among them; ignoring those
elements and using contrasting ones that bear no relationship to them “turns the back” on the
surrounding neighborhood. These inferred meanings are often attributed to the organization that
owns, built, and/or occupies the space.
Contrasts of height, mass, quality of materials, and the like may be read as status and/or au-
thority gestures, and such inferences are typically attributed by spatial users and other research-
relevant publics to the organization that arranged for the design and construction or the retrofit.
An organization that designs and constructs a new building that “towers” over its immediate
surroundings or, at a geographic remove, over others in its industry may be read as intending to
signal its higher status relative to those of neighboring organizations or competitors. Such a marked
difference in height is especially visible when a built area leaves large amounts of surrounding
property unbuilt and open to view. In this and other circumstances, the contrast might be seen as
intending to convey a “hands-off” unapproachability.ProxemicsA third analytic approach draws on E. Hall’s (1966) notion of proxemics—the social and personal
spaces between people, and perceptions of those spaces, that implicitly and tacitly shape human
behavior and interaction. Hall determined that there were different, culturally specific zones of
distance within which different types of relationship were enacted: intimate, personal, business,
and public, in an ever-widening use of space, and each potentially with internal variations. Whereas
analysis of design gestures looks at what is conveyed through the elements of design vocabularies
of individual spaces, proxemic analysis looks specifically at the spatial relationship or orientation
of a built space (or part of one) to others in the immediate area.
As with spatial gestures, this is a relational view that sees built spaces not as stand-alone
entities, but within a broader setting, as parts of a “neighborhood,” so to speak. Whereas gestures
involve material design elements, proxemic analysis considers the vocabularies of proximity,
siting, and interval: setbacks (from the street, from the sides, at the back, as relevant), spatial
surrounds used (open, inviting spaces; walls or other barriers), approaches and activities encour-
aged or prohibited by these (a broad, open expanse with glass doors might encourage passers-by
to enter, whereas other design elements might signal that only those who have business inside
should enter)—all in the context of culturally specific meanings.
Much as Hall found that people feel uncomfortable with strangers encroaching on their “per-
sonal” space (eighteen inches to four feet, in the North American norm), a sense of discomfort
may arise for the person who has to traverse a passage between buildings that are experienced as
being too close to each other, maneuver in office spaces that are too constraining of movement,
and so forth. The discomfort may be experienced by onlookers as well as participants. Con-
versely, a room that is felt as being too large for the activity it contains may also be experienced
as uncomfortable by those gathered in it (e.g., depending on the cultural norm, a hall designed to
accommodate 120 people being used for a meeting of 15).
As noted above, a building’s command of space is associated with power much in the same
way that the amount of space human bodies command is. In proxemic terms, this observation
might extend to a built area that leaves large amounts of surrounding property unbuilt and open to
view. Religious or governmental buildings in Europe and in North America that stand alone on