Whether or not a building is regarded as a ‘place’ or a ‘space’ is not only determined by Heideggerian philosophy of users interaction, but also by a process of attached symbolism and derived perception. One can explore this statement through the consideration of two buildings with similar intentions of interaction; the Queens University architecture studio, No.15 Chlorine Gardens and the Harland and Wolff drawing office. Whether a building is a ‘place’ or a ‘space, is hugely significant for any practicing architect to consider. However, arguably it is more important to investigate the circumstances of how a building attains the end label of a ‘place’ or ‘space’. As with the acknowledgement of the sociological and psychological processes, one is perhaps greater placed to start to debate the importance of the role of the architect. Before this can be done one needs to have an understanding of how academics have previously thought to define ‘place’.  For example Adam Sharr (2007) systematically looked at Martin Heidegger’s writings, aptly summarising Heidegger’s basic principle within both ‘The Thing’ and in ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’. An object or space only becomes significant through the interaction and meaning given by a user, changing the object or space into a thing or place (Sharr, 2007). This suggests that the latter terms have more meaning or fundamental human association to them, a ‘place’ expresses that there is more to the building, then it just being a ‘space’.

“Heidegger found the notion of object inadequate: too abstract, … too detached from daily experience. In contrast, a thing, for him, gained its characteristics from use… and how it related humans to the world around them. A thing was part of human being, not an abstract realm…” (Sharr, 2007, p30).

 

Similarly Christian Norberg-Schulz (1979) looks to define a ‘place’ through the concept of ‘genius loci’, laying down a similar argument that user interaction and attached meaning transforms a ‘space’ into something more, a ‘place’ where one can feel orientated and can readily identify with.

“Man dwells when he can orientate himself with an environment or, in short when he experiences the environment as meaningful. Dwelling therefore implies… that the spaces where life occurs are places… A place is a space with a distinct character (or genius loci)” (Norberg-Schulz, 1979, p 5).

However, further-yet pointing out that in order for this to occur the starting ‘space’ needs a physical, tangible element to it “The character is determined by the material and formal constitution of the place” (Norberg-Schulz, 1979, p 14). Notwithstanding as already considered, understanding these labels alone does not allow for comprehensive insight to how a building becomes defined as thus. In order for this to be achieved we must further investigate how users symbolise and perceive their surroundings. This can be done by considering theories from Amos Rapoport (1970), whereupon he argues that there are direct links between social structure and space organization given from symbolization, impacting user interaction. As well as theories put forward by symbolic integrationists who believe that it is people, whom live in an environment surrounded by shared experiences and symbols, which give personal meaning to their environment (Smith and Burgni, 2006).

 

Through user need, symbolization and perception, No. 15 Chlorine Gardens has been created and maintained as a defined ‘place’. Built in the early 1980’s, No. 15 was established from a specific user need; to house the Queen’s University School of Architecture under one roof. Previously the school had been scattered throughout various buildings and “temporary huts” within and outside of the main university campus (Aldous, 1986). With this catalyst of a user need for a unified space for students to work and learn in, and because of the nature of an architectural education (that is, its intensity and demand to work long hours within school studios), a sustained interaction with the building was formed.

 

This interaction with the building was one of Heidegger’s key tenets when considering how a ‘place’ is identified. Heidegger uses the term ‘dwelling’ as the identification of significant and meaningful interaction with a building, but also goes further creating the mantra of “to build is to dwell” (Heidegger, 1975). But not necessarily to physically build as Adam Sharr explains, “In Heidegger’s scheme, using the table constitutes dwelling. And people’s engagement with it constitutes building and dwelling. Moving the table around the room is building, of a sort…” (Sharr , 2007, p41). Therefore, through everyday engagement with No15 the students are in effect ‘building’ or adding to the sense of ‘place’. However, Heidegger (1975) also writes of how a ‘thing’, either by its existence or by its creation, determines a ‘place’, with his example of a bridge. Whereupon he goes into great detail, but which could be summarily quoted “Thus the bridge does not first come to a location to stand in it, rather, a location comes into existence only by the virtue of the bridge.” (Heidegger, 1975, p152). But this critically one could challenge, putting forward René Descartes’ philosophy ‘I think therefore I am’, rather as ‘I think therefore it is’. Thus highlighting the key aspect of the need for users identification that a ‘place’ is a ‘place’, because they determine it as thus. Furthermore, arguably physical interaction with the building cannot alone give a full insight into why such a building as No. 15 has been maintained as a ‘place’. One then needs to acknowledge the significant aspect, which possibly presupposes the initial interaction with the building. That is; of the symbolism as part of the Queen’s University as a whole and as part of the integral landscape of the university’s architectural institution. As Rapoport argued  “…symbols are an essential element in the way man perceives, evaluates and shapes his environment.” (Rapoport, 1974, p58). 

 

Therefore because No.15 has a primary ‘label’ as an architectural studio which somewhat categorises the building as a ‘place’ performing a certain function, it thus carries forth the symbols, and ‘common’ understanding to the use of the building. But still further, “…because symbolism involves the experience not only of the individual person, but also of the group…” (Dubous, 1965, p7). This common symbolization then influences our initial reaction to the building, creating a foundational layer of collective identification as to whether we regard the building as a ‘place’ or a ‘space’. However, following this initial guidance of socialized symbolization/meaning, the individual user would then ‘independently’ interact with the building and start to progress in determining their own means of identification. That is to say, that even though a building is built with a clear specific function which influences how we interact and perceive the building, this does not negate the fact that the building and all which encompasses it will mean and come to symbolize different things to each individual user, as suggested by Gieryn (2002). Therefore one can see the process through which No.15 Chlorine Gardens has gone through to become regarded as a ‘place’, via the identification of a user need, initial societal symbolization and then finally individual meaningful perception.

 

The Harland and Wolff drawing office has transformed from a ‘place’ to a ‘space’, through discontinued use, changing perceptions and symbolization to that of a ‘historical context’. Unlike No.15 Chlorine Gardens, the Harland and Wolff drawing office, built in stages between 1885 and 1912 for the Harland and Wolff shipyard (DoEni, n.d.), has gone through a significant transition from ‘place’ to ‘space’. Built to architecturally cater for a specific user need, the slow decline within the Belfast shipping industry and changing user needs in technological terms, has resulted in the discontinued use of the offices as its intended function and therefore caused symbolic and perceptual shifts towards users regarding the building as a ‘historical space’. Thus, because of the lack of integral user interaction the office has gone into disrepair forming a new significant associational symbolization of neglect, such like Rapports illustration of Hertzberger’s old peoples home, Amsterdam (Rapport, 1982, pp19-20). Therefore impacting the identification and understanding of the buildings function, even though structurally building has remains somewhat the same.

 

This is arguably supported by René Dubos’ (1965) schema, “Living forms respond in a manner which is determined not only by the nature of the stimulus itself, but also by the indirect reaction that it mobilizes in them.” (Dubos, 1965, p6). That is to say, because physically the building looks unkept and unused, psychologically the office has become symbolized as a space not to be interacted with. The significance of this symbolic shift is apparent when looking at the only interaction the building receives now, walking tours and pop-up events such as exhibitions (Kilpatrick, 2012). For although this is interaction, and one cannot presumes as to whether it was meaningful for the user, it could still be argued that the interaction is not significant enough to determinately change the over all perception of the building. This is made evident by the building going into further disrepair, while buildings surrounding the office get renovated and the creation of new landmarks (Titanic Belfast building) with all the outward sign posting of ‘place’ are constructed and invested in (Wylie, 2012).

 

As stated within the introduction, a key aspect according to Christian Norberg-Schultz (1979) of realizing a ‘place’, is the physical aspect, the materiality or construction of the building. This notion links to the need for the user to be able to identify and orientate oneself within a setting in order to experience it as meaningful and thus identifying the setting as a ‘place’. Therefore, due to this lack of user interaction, the office has lost its means of physical identification and orientation, thus allowing for the conclusion of its transformation of a ‘place’ to a ‘space’. However, Norberg-Schultz (1979) later makes the point that the structure of a place may not remain the same, and that ‘as a rule places change’, but this does not necessarily mean that the genius loci (what intuitively identifies a building as a ‘place’) changes. Nevertheless one could not sufficiently prove that the office has been able to maintain a grounded sense of ‘genius loci’ or ‘place’. Yet the point that something may never lose an intuitive sense of identification is a vital physiological element that one should not ignore.  Thus, the above suggest that in the instance of the Harland and Wolff drawing office the meaning, symbolism and perception of the building follows the lack of significant interaction, therefore decisively transforming the building as ‘place’ to that of a ‘space’.

 

In conclusion, identification as to whether a building is a ‘place’ or a ‘space’ is determined by combination of physical and psychological processes. That is, by an amalgam of user interaction, attached symbolism and derived perception. Using the two examples of No.15 Chlorine Gardens and the Harland and Wolff drawing office, with theories such as Heidegger’s (1975) and Norberg-Schultz (1979) used to demonstrate the need for user interaction in order for the building to become something ‘more’ and meaningful. Still further, Norberg-Schultz’s (1979) identification that for one to be able to realize this meaningful interaction, there needs to be a certain degree of physicality in order that one might use it to orientate themselves. However, arguably this alone could not account for why such buildings as No.15 are considered a ‘place’ and why the drawing office is considered a ‘space’.

 

Thus, a combination of theories surrounding the effects and importance of symbolism to the user were put forward. Significantly work done by Amos Rapoport and René Dubos, to exemplify the impact of symbolism within a wider context, and then on a personal level. The importance of not just looking into the identification of our surroundings from a Heideggerian point of view, is hugely significant for any practicing architect. Understanding that people do not just interact with a building physically, consciously and predictably, but psychologically, unconsciously and symbolically, is something which should not be overlooked. This is particularly significant if we as architects wish to engage within the debate of whom has responsibility over the built environment and to what extent.

 

 

Bibliography

Works Cited;

Aldous, T. 1986, "Belfast brief", Building design, , no. 775, pp. 20-21.

DoEni: Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland , Historic Building Details, HB Ref No: HB26/07/009 [Homepage of Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland], [Online]. Available: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/content-databases-buildview?id=10800&js=true [2013, January, 08].

Dubos, R.J. 1965, Man adapting, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Gieryn, T.F. 2002, "What buildings do", Theory and Society, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 35-74.

Heidegger, M. 1975, Poetry, language, thought, Harper & Row, New York; London.

Kilpatrick, C. 2012, Ceiling in famous Titanic drawing offices collapses, Belfast Telegraph, Northern Ireland.

Norberg-Schulz, C. 1979, Genius loci :towards a phenomenology of architecture, Academy Editions, London.

Rapoport, A. 1990; 1982, The meaning of the built environment :a nonverbal communication approach, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Rapoport, A. 1974, "Symbolism and Environmental Design", Journal of Architectural Education (1947-1974), vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 58-63.

Sharr, A. 2007, Heidegger for architects, Routledge, London.

Smith, R.W. & Bugni, V. 2006, "Symbolic interaction theory and architecture", Faculty Publications (S), University of Nevada, Las Vegas, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 123-155.

Wylie, J. 2012, "Former Harland and Wolff Administration and Drawing Office, Belfast", Perspective: the journal of the Royal Society of Ulster Architects, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 61.

 

Works Referenced;

Charon, J.M. 1979, Symbolic interactionism :an introduction, an interpretation, an integration, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs; London etc.

Coolen, H. & Ozaki, R. 2004, "Culture, lifetyle and the meaning of a dwelling", Adequate & Affordable Housing for All: Research, Policy, PracticeCUCS Housing Conference, Toronto, June 24-27 2004.

Mulholland, C. 2009, "Design refurbishment; Todd Architects", Perspective: the journal of the Royal Society of Ulster Architects, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 9.

Najafi, M. & Bin Mohd Shariff, M. K. 2011, "The Concept of Place and Sense of Place in Architectual Studies", Journal of Human and Social Sciences, , pp. 187-193.

Norberg-Schulz, C. 1963, Intentions in architecture, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo; Boston.

Rapoport, A. 1970, "The Study of Spatial Quality", Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 81-95.

Reza Shirazi, M. 2008, "‘Genius Loci’, phenomenology from without", International Journal of Architectural Theory, [Online], vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 27 December 2012. Available from: http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/Wolke/wolke_neu/inhalt/en/issue/issues/207/Shirazi/shirazi.php.

Tennyson, M. 2010, "New life for an old friend; Architects for refurbishment: Todd Architects", Perspective: the journal of the Royal Society of Ulster Architects, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 38-44.

Whitehead, A.N. 1928, Symbolism, its meaning and effect, Cambridge University Press, London.

Whyte, W. 2006, "How do buildings mean? Some issues of interpretation in the history of architecture", History and Theory, vol. 45, pp. 153-177.