disciplined informality

SSS10 Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium

xxx: C Capille & S Psarra Disciplined Informality: Assembling un-‐programmed spatial practices in three public libraries in Medellín

1

Disciplined Informality: Assembling un-‐programmed spatial practices in three public libraries in Medellín

Cauê Capillé The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL [email protected] Sophia Psarra The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL [email protected]

Abstract:

Medellín’s Library-‐Parks were built with the main purpose of strengthening the sense of community of each library’s surrounding neighbourhoods. In addition to ‘original’ programmes of public libraries, these buildings organise cultural events and meetings for sharing ideas and practices. Great importance is given to the generation of informal interactions in the libraries, and to the networks that are constructed by these interactions. Interactions are programmed (events organised by the libraries) but also un-‐programmed based on random encounters, which generate emergent social networks. However, despite the intention to support ‘community emancipation’ through informal networks, the organisational structure of the libraries may control such unprogrammed formations through institutional rules for organisation of behaviours. In fact, even if there are no official intentions for social control, the mere presence of staff means that human activities may be observed and informal networks affected. This leads to an implicit form of control that can be more pervasive than overt control based on predefined behavioural rules.

Understanding the tensions behind the organisational aims built upon the desire to enable informal interactions leading to self-‐organised social groups and at the same time define institutional rules that discipline society – is the main topic of this paper. In particular, we look at three cases – San Javier, Fernando Botero and Belén libraries – focusing on how observed informal interactions associate with the libraries’ organisational control. Rather than looking at these social practices as rates of activity, which is the normal research practice in studies of space and activity using space syntax, we develop a method to address them as socio-‐spatial network elements. This approach reveals phenomena that would not be made visible otherwise: that is, of the ways in which the Library-‐Parks structure informal interactions potentially supporting the development of self-‐organised social groups and at the same time define institutional rules that discipline society.

It is found that the three buildings work in significantly different ways, despite their similar programme. In San Javier, space is used as the instrument of tactics of disciplinary control, particularly through controlling thresholds of communication between different user clusters and through constant surveillance of each cluster. In turn, Fernando Botero becomes a network where clusters of users are linearly linked by ‘transition spaces’ that work as bridges. Different clusters are separated with sharp



2

programmatic boundaries, excluding unpredicted mixing of activities and making knowledge remain internal to the group. It is argued that empowering space and society to be generative rather than conservative can be achieved less by predicting the use of space and more by providing socio-‐spatial conditions that allow unpredictability to flourish. In this sense, we propose that environments such as Belén Library-‐Park support the formation of self-‐organised social groups. Structured on a core community of clusters of informal interactions, this building can be an exemplar in terms of constructing social awareness that surpasses the limits established by the Library-‐Parks Programme – both in spatial and transpatial dimensions.

Keywords:

Disciplinary tactics; Clusters of interactions; Informality; Public libraries; Generative space;

1. Un-‐programmed as a park, but organised as a library

“Thus a courtroom stripped of judges and judged, and set in a funfair, ceases to be a courtroom and becomes a pure expression of the generative laws of space.” (Hillier, 1996)

Today libraries are becoming multi-‐functional places, housing many more activities than they did in the past. These activities were mainly about the organisation of knowledge and access to information. Since digital technology has offered everyone rapid and wide access to information, libraries have undergone programmatic transformations (Sears & Crandall, 2010; Verheul, 2010). In fact, for some authors these buildings became a public “structure that just happen to house a library” (Shoham & Yablonka, 2008). This programmatic transformation is embedded in the description of the Project of Library-‐Parks in Medellín, which places a great value to the formation of ‘informal’ social networks – and which diminishes the importance of the range and size of the libraries’ material collection1. These buildings are part of a greater project of “urban upgrading” of the poor communities of Medellín (Brand & Dávila, 2013; Dávila, 2013), which includes the provision of transport systems, schools, public spaces and other public facilities. In the strategies utilised in this “urban upgrading”, there is an implicit idea that changing urban and architectural structures may improve the social conditions of these neighbourhoods. In other words, urban and architectural space would have the capacity to produce and alter society.

In the case of the Library-‐Parks programme, this role of changing the social is aimed to be constructed through two main strategies (Montoya, 2014): the first one refers to the idea of using architecture as means to represent this ‘upgraded’ society. This is expressed by the sites chosen for these buildings – they are all in places that have a recent history of strong violence (executions camps, drug trafficking bases, prisons) that reminds of the Medellín of the Cartels2 (Melguizo & Cronshaw, 2001; Montoya, 2014). The intention for these libraries is to use the sites and the architecture of these buildings as symbols of successful social change – an idea that is broadcasted internationally, influencing other cities (e.g. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) that started similar strategies in their own contexts.

The second strategy used by the Library-‐Parks Programme refers to the idea that these buildings are capable of producing this social change. This role is stressed by the fact that the buildings are not just libraries, but also ‘parks’. In fact, the emphasis on the idea that these buildings are public spaces in the first place is implicit in the name of the programme (in Spanish), “Parques-‐Biblioteca” – where “park” comes first (Montoya, 2014). This is due to the fact that these facilities are supposed not only to represent urban change, but also produce it though the arrangement of spaces that can generate a new

1 Reference: authors’ unpublished interview with Herman Montoya, Leader of Library-‐Park Programme, 2014. 2 In the 1970ies and 80ies, Medellín used to suffer from the control of major drug trafficking groups known as Cartels.



3

sense of community and citizenship through informal co-‐inhabitation (Empresa de Desarollo Urbano, 2014; Montoya, 2014). In other words, great importance is given to the generation of informal interactions in the libraries, and to the networks that are constructed by these interactions. The “library” part of the programme title refers to a set of different programmes that aim at educating these social networks so as they can be integrated in a “21st century economy of production” (Empresa de Desarollo Urbano, 2014; Gallego, 2011) – offering courses of informatics, small business administration, literacy, language, arts etc. In short, implicit in these programmes is the idea that the library should help organising this ‘new society’ into a productive one. Therefore, while the first strategy – representing and broadcasting social change through architecture – may be considered successful3, the second strategy – influencing a new society by the internal architectural operations of space and use – remains to be fully understood.

Understanding the tensions inherent in the library-‐park programme – i.e. enabling informal interactions to form self-‐organised social groups and at the same time use spatial strategies of disciplinary control in alliance with the programme of integration of the community in the economic models of society – is the main topic of this paper. In particular, we focus on the underlying implication embedded in the main functions and intentions of the Library-‐Park Programme: how groups of un-‐programmed interactions created in the libraries associate with the libraries’ organisational intentions?

2. On tactics of disciplinary control

Different theories of knowledge define different organisations of space (Forgan, 1986; Koch, 2004; Markus, 1993). Thomas Markus (1993) argues that these different spatial organisations embed power relations, as for him “knowledge is power” (1993:169). However, how can we identify the spatial dimensions of different types of knowledge? If we consider knowledge as socially constructed (Foucault, 2002; Latour, 1987, 2005), we may see three main different types of knowledge being produced in the Library-‐Parks: one that comes from the social engagement with courses offered in the libraries that enable the integration of people in the system of production; a second one that comes from the un-‐programmed interactions that can generate self-‐organised social groups; finally, a third one that comes from mechanisms of disciplinary control. In the first, knowledge comes from a relatively ‘fixed’ or ‘non-‐negotiable’ structure of social relations (the predefined programme), compared to the structure of the social relations that generate the second type of knowledge. The first type of knowledge may still be reproduced in architectural forms that conserve social relations4. The second, however, cannot happen properly if architectural form does not give support to the ‘negotiation of social descriptions’ 5 . Furthermore, even if architectural form does give support to the negotiation of social descriptions, social practices may still operate in opposed directions than that which space points to. The third type of knowledge is produced by subtle forms of control, where space is used as a tool to act on each individual’s mind, in order to make it docile (Foucault 1991). This takes place whenever spaces reinforce the idea that individuals are under constant surveillance of a bureaucratic body that exists above them

3 Considering all the attention from international media that Medellín is receiving regarding these projects. 4 On the discussion on environments that “conserve” and/or “generate” social relations, see Hillier and Hanson 1984; Hillier and Penn 1991; Hanson 1996; Hillier and Netto 2002. The distinction between generative and conservative buildings was introduced by Hillier (Hillier & Penn, 1991; Hillier, Peponis, & Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1996) and has marked a generation of studies (Hanson, 1996; Psarra et al., 2007; Sailer & Penn, 2009; Sailer, 2007; Tzortzi, 2007). However, most of these works even when they don’t maintain a sharp division between the two kinds of programme do not offer a way to define a more detailed relationship between space and spatial culture. 5 See Hillier and Netto (2002) for a thorough discussion on organisations that specialise in the negotiation of descriptions and organisations that specialise in the control of descriptions. In particular, see their definitions of ‘political’ and ‘legal’ organisations.



4

(Foucault 1991; Bernstein 2003)6. However, this constant surveillance is ambiguously combined with spatial affordances that encourage participation and individualization (Foucault 1991; Bernstein 2003)7.

Kim Dovey (2008) addresses this ambiguity between architectural affordances and social practices, suggesting that there are five kinds of control through space: ‘force’, ‘coercion’, ‘manipulation’, ‘seduction’ and ‘authority’. Here, we will focus particularly in his definitions of ‘coercion’ and ‘authority’, since they emphasise a disjunction between spatial affordances and practices of control. ‘Coercion’ is described as a latent kind of force that operates by preventing subjects from ever forming intentions of resistance. It gains its power from being under the cover of voluntarism through situations that may resemble to allow free choice, but actually prevent it. An open gate with guards standing on both sides is an example of coercion (Dovey 2008). ‘Authority’ is defined by Dovey as a form of control marked by the absence of argument, relying on an unquestioned recognition and compliance. ‘Authority’ is, therefore, “integrated with the institutional structures of society such as the state, church, private corporation, school and family” (2008:14). Although being unquestioned, “authority rests upon a base of ‘legitimation’” (Arendt apud Dovey, 2008:14), and “the need for legitimation increases as power becomes totalising” (Dovey, 2008:17). In the case of the state, for example, this legitimation is understood as ‘public interest’. Dovey considers that the notion of public interest is particularly complex in public buildings which “can serve at once to legitimise authority, reinforce a sense of community, gratify the political or architectural will, turn a profit and reinforce self-‐deceit” (2008:16). However, in the Library-‐Parks of Medellín, since authoritarian forms of control would trigger a strong critique about their role to construct self-‐organised communities, more implicit forms of control may take place.

Foucault’s work offers an account of different types of social control – from explicit to implicit techniques. Studying the disciplinary frameworks of prisons, Foucault formulates that the transition from public torture to the confinement of the prison as a punishment of a crime underpins a subtle tactic of social control (Foucault, 1991). He argues that this transition took place during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and it is clear in the emergence of building typologies of this period: factories, schools, prisons, hospitals and barracks – all resemble each other and present different modalities of this “new” form of control. The “disciplines”, as he names it, is the set of technologies of social control that act through transforming the body of the person subjected to control into a docile, efficient (economic) and useful social force (1991). However, despite the examples that he uses in support of his arguments – e.g. the detailed description of the Panopticon; the spatial organisation of military barracks; the time-‐table of monasteries; and the distribution of students in schools – he does not make clear how this “architecture that would operate to transform individuals” (1991:172) actually performs such transformation through the system of social and spatial relations.

In fact, some of the disciplinary tactics, such as “exercise” and “constant surveillance”, outlined by Foucault may be seen as contradictory when considered together. “Exercise” is a “technique by which one imposes on the body tasks that are both repetitive and different, but always graduated” (1991:153,161), in order to bend behaviours towards a normalized state. On the other hand, “constant surveillance” is a technique by which the exercise of power is made manifest through permanent visibility of subjects’ activities, assuring the automatic functioning of power (1991). Foucault suggests that all techniques he describes are acting towards the same goal – that of the “politically economic (…) ordering of human multiplicities” (1991:218). However, studies such as those performed by Basil

6 In Foucault (1991), this bureaucratic body is the State; in Bernstein, it is represented by the School administration and staff members. 7 Foucault (1991) argues that the process of subjectification of the masses – expressed in the creation of biometric technologies of identification and in the tailoring of institutions, laws and punishments to reach each type of individual – exposes how the expression of each one’s individuality facilitate their control towards a normalised society. Bernstein sees a similar process in relation to situations that encourage that individuals make their personality public.



5

Bernstein (2003), show that, when applied separately, techniques very similar to the ones Foucault describes may generate significantly different social outcomes.

Using the term “classification”, Bernstein describes how knowledge may be separated into subjects with sharp boundaries or integrated into a more holistic whole. He calls “framing” the context (schools’ spaces) and practice of teaching (the relation between teachers and pupils), which may also have sharp boundaries, or be blurred one to another. Bernstein argues that the combination of these two aspects – classification and framing – may create two opposed social solidarities. When boundaries between different subjects have a clear-‐cut relationship, and context also clearly establishes how the process is supposed to happen – i.e. when a ‘top-‐down’ control over pupils learning process is explicit – then differences in individualities are ignored and a normalized “mechanical” society (Durkheim apud Bernstein 2003) is created. On the other hand, a teaching process where boundaries between subjects and social positions of teacher and pupils are weak would allow individualities to be made manifest, and then a society made of differentiated parts would be constructed. However, Bernstein reminds that in this case an implicit form of control is established, since the more the individuality of each subject is publicly expressed, the less it can be hidden from the knowledge of the group. For Bernstein, this is perhaps an even more pervasive form of control. Considering Foucault’s description on different forms of control, we can see that the first type of school applies the disciplinary tactics of what Foucault calls ‘exercise’; while the second type of school is based on ‘constant surveillance’, which would be more efficient, since it is always operating on the body by the minimal effort (politically discreet) (Foucault 1991:218)8.

Since these techniques of control cannot be explicitly used in the libraries, space becomes the “silent instrument” of their application (Dovey, 2008; Foucault, 1991, 1994). In this study, we investigate how these two techniques that are here abstractly defined – ‘exercise’ and ‘constant surveillance’ – may be combined in the spatial practices of Medellin’s public libraries. With these theoretical ideas in mind, the question is formulated as follows: how can we capture the structure of practices that only happen in situ and expose this controversial role of space? Our proposition is to explore them as networks of informal interactions between visitor-‐to-‐visitor relations and networks of social control formed by staff-‐to-‐visitor relationships.

3. Assembling Architecture as Networks of Practices

Here we present a method developed so as to capture social networks of interactions and their spatial distribution inside the Library buildings. In particular, considering the topic of this paper, we address how we describe and map visitors’ informal interactions – that is, interactions that are the result of un-‐programmed encounters – and staff’s surveillance patterns. The former capture visitors’ clusters of interactions in space and visual connections among these clusters as a way to map the potential for the formation of ‘virtual community’9 (Hillier 1996) based on informal co-‐awareness and co-‐presence. The latter describes visual awareness of visitors by staff and expresses the potential for surveillance and therefore, disciplinary control. We analyse these maps combining methods from space syntax and social network analysis. Finally, we describe the results of the analysis using these methods. It is argued that the analysis using these maps reveals phenomena that would not be seen otherwise: that is, of the ways in which the Library-‐Parks structure informal interactions potentially leading to networks of self-‐organised social groups and at the same time define institutional rules that discipline society.

8 We are of course aware that Foucault is talking about techniques which initially applied through physical control of the body are transferred to disciplinary knowledge of the mind. Here we are discussing Bernstein’s differences in pedagogical structures, which do not have an implicit spatial organisation. 9 The paper considers three definitions of the notion of ‘community’: a) community as the surrounding neighbourhood; b) community as co-‐presence and co-‐awareness in space; c) community as group cluster captured by modularity analysis (see later in this article); The word community will be mainly used to refer to (c).



6

N

groundfloor

floor 1

05

10m

N

floor 2

floor 1floor 1

floor 2

a. San Javier Library-Park b. Fernando Botero Library-Park

Figure 1: The three buildings.

c. Belén Library-Park



7

3.1. Firstly, the 3 buildings

San Javier Library-‐Park is situated on a hillside in between the districts of Comunas 12 and 13. It is the first Library-‐Park built in Medellín (Figure 1a) and was designed by the EDU (Empresa de Desarollo Urbano) in 2006. The building plan offers an interesting solution to fitting floors on a slope: it is organized in cascading platforms, with each ‘step’ consisting of corridor and rooms. A few courtyards open the building to daylight and break the sequence of rooms in the corridors. An aspect to be noted, though, is that the library was constructed with many entrances (one in each “strip-‐step”); but the administration keeps only the main entrance opened.

Belen Library-‐Park (Figure 1c) was built in 2008, and it is situated in Comuna 16. The architect of this building is Hirochi Naito and the building seems to make a clear reference to Japanese architecture. The library can be described as a collection of pavilions surrounding a courtyard with a reflecting pool. As it is situated between two roads, the building is constantly used as a public pathway.

Fernando Botero Library-‐Park (Figure 1b) was the first library of a second round of constructions of Library Parks. It was designed by G-‐Ateliers in collaboration with the surrounding population (San Cristóbal neighbourhood). Due to this collaboration, some of the programmes of the library were re-‐sized to attend the actual demand of the neighbourhood10. This building is situated in a very steep hillside, and uses this condition to create different entry points in different levels. All three libraries’ projects were winning schemes of open international architectural competitions.

3.2. Maps of Aggregate Practices: The spatial structure of informal social practices

During fieldwork, we mapped the actual social practices in the spaces of the libraries through a sequence of ‘snapshots’ and ‘traces’ observations11 (Figure 2) and transferred all this data to a single map, in order to be able to capture the ‘aggregate picture’ of the social practices of each building (Figure 3). These maps are not just representations of phenomena (one cannot see this aggregate level at once when experiencing the buildings) but also instruments of assembling socio-‐spatial phenomena. We call these instruments “maps of aggregate practices”, since they construct representations of how each library forms a field of collective spatial practice and use over time.

These maps lay out space and social practices. The interrelation of space and use is a key topic in space syntax research. Through a statistical approach, most studies look at how space and use co-‐vary (e.g. Hillier et al. 1996; Penn, Desyllas, and Vaughan 1997; Doxa 2001; Peponis et al. 2004; Koch 2004; Psarra et al. 2007). Normally space syntax analysis collects observation data and translates them into occupancy rates. The relationship of space and occupancy rates is subsequently explored through statistical correlations looking at probability distributions. While statistical analysis can address the relationship between occupancy and spatial values, the actual networks of spatial and social relationships among different kinds of users are lost in the analytical process. Thus, instead of searching for regularities between space and rates of activities, this work aims at searching for spatial-‐social interrelatedness in a network. In correlating different datasets one is interested in how much a variable relates to another. In analysing them as nodes in the same network, one is interested in the particularities of where and how these variables “net-‐work” (associate), what are the points of contact and how they operate (Latour, 2005). In short, this study focuses on assembling and mapping how the buildings form socio-‐spatial networks as processes through space and time, rather than explaining them through quantitative social science. Therefore, in order to analyse associations between structures of observed social practices and

10 E.g. the auditoriums in the first libraries are considerably smaller than the one in Fernando Botero. 11 Empirical observations: 3 days per library: 2 weekdays, 1 weekend day, spread across a whole month and interchanged between other libraries – this was done in order to avoid the influence of specific dates, or weather conditions. Four ‘snapshots’ per day (12 in total) and 50 ‘traces’ in total for each library. When mapping use and tracing people, we took notes of other demographic information, such as gender and age group.



8

space, we developed a method to synthesize them into how they work as network elements – that is, as nodes and links.

In doing this, this study borrows from Actor Network Theory (ANT) the idea that human and non-‐human actors interrelate in a social network (Latour, 1987, 2005; Yaneva, 2012). The work of Yaneva (2012) is particularly interesting in regards to ‘capturing the architectural’ through the mapping of human-‐spatial interrelation. However, since it focuses almost exclusively in what is communicated about architecture in the media, Yaneva’s work does not provide a clear suggestion to understand how the actual use of architecture works as a network.

a. An example of snapshot observation at Belén Library Parkb. An example of tracing observation at Belén Library Park

b. Aggregating all snapshots and tracings in a single GIS file

a

c

b

Figure 2: The process of mapping aggregate practices.



9

Regarding informal interactions, our aim is to understand their distribution in space – particularly where they concentrate into clusters. This was done with GIS software12, using the plugin ‘Heatmap’, which uses Kernel Density Estimation to construct a density raster (‘heatmap’) of an input point vector data (Figure 4a). The density is calculated based on the number of points in a location, with larger numbers of clustered points resulting in larger values. ‘Heatmaps’ allow easy identification of “hotspots” and clustering of points. Since we constructed these maps at aggregate level, the ‘heatmaps’ expose the distribution of (aggregate) densities of informal interactions13. Three meters was the distance that better

12 QGIS version 2.6.1 13 This aggregate level indicates the probable ‘common picture’ of the buildings, in other words, it allows to annulling particularities of each snapshot.

do eat

date

meet

phone

photo

play

readrelax

search

study

walk

watch

work

traces

Figure 3: One example of Map of Aggregate Practices – Belén Library-Park.



10

represented observed phenomena and exposed differences across cases14. In order to differentiate individual clusters in the ‘heatmap’, we extracted areas that present the same level of intensity of clustering of interactions (‘hotspots’, Figure 4a, diagram 2). The choice of this level was also based on better representing observed phenomena and exposing differences across cases. This choice was not based on a specific value, but on a proportion in each case’s range of values of intensity of clustering: the cut-‐level was 2/3 of the range. In other words, the ‘hotspots’ represent the area of the 66% more intensely clustered interactions. Finally, we calculated the centroids of each ‘hotspot’ (cluster) so that we could later understand each cluster as a single node with a specific location. Summarising this method,

14 Smaller distances were not capturing clustering, and larger distances were clustering all interactions into one big cluster. Furthermore, this distance generated clusters that somehow correspond to the intuitive picture of the phenomena that was observed on site.

people involved in interactions

clusters of interactions

hotspots and centroids of clusters

1

2

3a

c d

b

Figure 4: (a) The process of clustering interactions and extracting hotspots and centroids of each clusters; (b) San Javier Library-Park; (c) Fernando Botero Library-Park; (d) Belén Library-Park. From Figure 4 to Figure 6, the mapping is shown as a progression.



11

we analysed the distribution of densities of aggregate informal interactions (‘heatmap’), extracted the clusters (‘hotspots’) from this distribution of densities and calculated the location (‘centroids’) of each cluster (seen analytically in figures 4b, 4c, 4d).

Regarding library staff, since our study focuses on understanding their (potential) practice of surveillance, we mapped and overlaid their fields of view (isovists) in order to capture their spatial associations based on visibility connections with visitors’ clusters of informal interactions, other staff, and spaces (Figure 5). In summary, this work analyses associations between three groups of relations:

hotspots and centroids of clusters of interactions

space (node) and spatial connections (links)

combined isovists of staff members and their locations

a

c

b

Figure 5: The synthetic maps exposing staff’s aggregate isovists, clusters and space. (a) San Javier Library-Park; (b) Fernando Botero Library-Park; (c) Belén Library-Park. From Figure 4 to Figure 6, the mapping is shown as a progression.



12

the building through its convex spatial structure 15 ; informal interactions through their clustering locations; and staff through their location and field of view. The maps achieved in this way, assemble spatial practice and spatial relations as networked interactions of spaces and people rather than as separate maps of spatial distribution of spatial values, use rates and statistical analysis.

4. Analysing Space-‐Practice Networks

We construct Space-‐Practice Network representations where space, clusters and staff are nodes, and their associations are links (see Figure 6, legend). Space-‐Space associations refer to spatial permeability connections; Cluster-‐Space associations concern the spaces where clusters of interactions take place; Staff-‐Space associations capture spaces that are visible by staff; Cluster-‐Cluster, Cluster-‐Staff and Staff-‐Staff associations refer to visual co-‐awareness. In order to analyse these networks, we laid out two visualizations.

The first visualization (Figure 6) shows how these associations happen on the plan of the buildings. The second one (Figures 7, 8) was constructed using a software for visualization and network analysis (Gephi16), which distributes them through an algorithm that simulates a physical system where the nodes repulse each other while the links attract (Jacomy, Venturini, Heymann, & Bastian, 2014; Noack, 2009). This reorganization of nodes and links without the plan of the buildings as a background allows a clear exposure of the “groupings” – or communities – based on “densely connected groups” of nodes (Granovetter, 1973; Newman, 2006; Noack, 2007). The measures of ‘betweeness centrality’ (which is similar to ‘choice’ used in space syntax analysis), ‘closeness centrality’ (similar to ‘integration’ in space syntax) and ‘modularity’ offer tools to start approaching an analytical description of each network. Among these, the analysis of ‘modularity’ exposes an insightful overview of how each network is partitioned into “communities” with strong links between elements (Jacomy et al., 2014; Newman, 2006; Noack, 2009) (Figure 8, indicated with white boundaries). Newman (2006) explains the mathematical description of modularity as, “up to a multiplicative constant, the number of edges falling within groups minus the expected number in an equivalent network with edges placed at random”. In fact, it should be emphasised that this study uses ‘modularity’ as the method to define different group clusters or ‘communities’ in each building’s network (see footnote 9 for a clarification of the term ‘community’).

15 We chose to describe the buildings’ spaces through their convex system for a variety of reasons. The main reason refers to the fact that convexity is fundamentally related to occupation (Hillier 1996), as axiality is to movement and visible field is to intelligibility; forming the main generic functions of buildings and their correspondent spatial descriptions (Hillier 1996). 16 Gephi version 0.8.2



13

San Javier Library Park’s network (Figures 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a) is partitioned into 7 communities (Figure 8a, white boundaries), which are indicated in different colours. When accessing the library, one enters in a community (Figure 8a, in red, see arrow indicating entrance) made of a few spaces, interactions and staff, with some spatial looping possibilities (space types [c] and [d], see Hillier 1996). There are just a couple of clusters of interactions, which are not visually aware of each other. A staff member (Figure 8a, Staff 104) is the only “bridge” – or “weak tie”, to use Granovetter’s terminology (1973) – between this community and the others. We can see that this captures the staff’s awareness of the co-‐presence between communities; in other words, this particular staff member has a strong control of the flow of movement from all other communities inside the library and this ‘entrance-‐community’. In fact, we can see that the more central the node is (Figure 7a, closeness centrality indicated by the colours); the more its communication with peripheral nodes is regulated by staff. All other communities have a staff

a

c

b

convex space

centroid of cluster of interactions

position of staff

space-space association (“connects to”)

cluster-space association (“happens in”)

cluster-cluster association (“sees”)

staff-space association (“sees”)

staff-staff association (“sees”)

staff-cluster association (“sees”)

type C1 type C2

type C2b type C3b type C4b

type C3 type C4

type S1 type S2

type S2b type S3b

type S3

d

a c c c

b c d b

a a c c

a b a c a

a b c d

type S1b

type S3

Figure 6: details of the networks of space-practice in (a) San Javier; (b) Fernando Botero; and (c) Belén.) From Figure 4 to Figure 6, the mapping is shown as a progression.



14

member as a central node of “strong ties” (Granovetter, 1973), exposing another form of awareness: that of co-‐presence inside communities. Even considering the community shown in dark blue (Figure 8a), which is the one with the highest density of clusters of informal interactions, it turns out that the staff member is aware of all social practices in this cluster. Staff members occupy the most integrated spaces of the building (figure 9a). These spaces are the ones that link different communities in the library. This aspect creates a strongly observed core in the building, which branches into communities in segregated spaces that have a staff observing social practices in them. It is interesting to note that, considering that this integration core is made mainly of [d] type spaces (Hillier 1996:247-‐255) (Figure 10a, picture and spaces 12, 15 and 16, indicated in orange boundary), visitors have the possibility of choosing different routes to move in the building. Nevertheless, staff positions in the network of spaces and social practices are such that establish a structure of supervision of this movement.

In Fernando Botero Library Park’s network (Figures 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b, 10b), 7 communities are formed which are distributed in a linear way. Bridges (weak ties) are likely to be made by spaces (Figure 8b). In other

59 - Staff

60 - Staff

61 - Staff

62 - Staff

63 - Staff

64 - Staff

65 - Staff

33 - Cluster

34 - Cluster

35 - Cluster

36 - Cluster

37 - Cluster

38 - Cluster

39 - Cluster

40 - Cluster

41 - Cluster

42 - Cluster

43 - Cluster44 - Cluster

45 - Cluster

46 - Cluster

47 - Cluster

48 - Cluster

49 - Cluster

50 - Cluster

51 - Cluster

52 - Cluster

53 - Cluster

54 - Cluster

55 - Cluster

56 - Cluster

57 - Cluster

58 - Cluster

1 - Space

2 - Space

3 - Space

4 - Space

5 - Space

6 - Space

7 - Space

8 - Space

9 - Space

10 - Space

11 - Space

12 - Space

13 - Space

14 - Space

15 - Space 16 - Space17 - Space

18 - Space

19 - Space

20 - Space

21 - Space

22 - Space

23 - Space

24 - Space

25 - Space

26 - Space

27 - Space

28 - Space29 - Space

30 - Space

31 - Space

32 - Space

1 - Space

2 - Space

3 - Space

4 - Space5 - Space

6 - Space

7 - Space

8 - Space

9 - Space

10 - Space

11 - Space

12 - Space

13 - Space

14 - Space

15 - Space

16 - Space

17 - Space

18 - Space

19 - Space


22 - Space


25 - Space

26 - Space

27 - Space

28 - Space

29 - Space

30 - Space

31 - Space

32 - Space

33 - Space

34 - Space

35 - Space

36 - Space

38 - Space

39 - Space

40 - Space

41 - Space

42 - Space

43 - Space

44 - Space

45 - Space

46 - Space

47 - Space

48 - Space

49 - Space

50 - Space

51 - Space


54 - Space

55 - Space

56 - Space

57 - Space


60 - Space

61 - Space

63 - Space

65 - Space

66 - Space

67 - Space

68 - Space

69 - Space


72 - Space

73 - Space 74 - Space

75 - Space

76 - Space

77 - Space

78 - Space

79 - Space

80 - Space

81 - Cluster

82 - Cluster

83 - Cluster

84 - Cluster 85 - Cluster


88 - Cluster

89 - Cluster

90 - Cluster

91 - Cluster

92 - Cluster

93 - Cluster

94 - Cluster

95 - Cluster

96 - Cluster 97 - Staff

98 - Staff

99 - Staff

100 - Staff

101 - Staff

102 - Staff

103 - Staff

104 - Staff

105 - Staff

1 - Space

2 - Space

3 - Space

4 - Space

5 - Space

6 - Space

7 - Space

8 - Space

9 - Space

10 - Space

11 - Space


14 - Space


17 - Space

18 - Space

19 - Space

20 - Space

21 - Space

22 - Space

23 - Space

24 - Space

25 - Space

26 - Space

27 - Space

28 - Space

29 - Space

30 - Space

31 - Space

32 - Space

33 - Space

34 - Cluster

35 - Cluster

36 - Cluster

37 - Cluster

38 - Cluster

39 - Cluster

40 - Cluster

41 - Cluster

42 - Cluster

43 - Cluster

44 - Cluster

45 - Cluster

46 - Cluster

47 - Cluster

48 - Cluster

49 - Cluster

50 - Cluster

51 - Cluster

52 - Cluster


55 - Cluster

56 - Cluster

57 - Cluster

58 - Cluster

59 - Cluster

60 - Cluster

61 - Cluster

62 - Cluster

63 - Cluster64 - Staff

65 - Staff

66 - Staff

67 - Staff

68 - Staff

69 - Cluster

a. San Javierb. Fernando Botero

b. Belén

Arrows indicate buildings’ entrances;Hotter colours indicate higher closeness centrality;

Sizes of nodes indicate relative betweeness centrality;Black edges highlight space-space connections;

a

c

b

Figure 7: Space-Practice Networks



15

words, different communities are separated by ‘transition spaces’, which form the links and the barriers between them at the same time. These ‘transition spaces’ are stairs and passages that -‐ due to their scale -‐ become separate convex spaces adding steps in between communities (Figure 10b, picture and spaces 2, 11 and 21). Space 2 and 21 (Figure 10b) are the most representative of this ‘bridge’ condition: since they are [b] type spaces, their links are crucial to the communication between different parts of the spatial network. In effect, spaces in the library are connected through [a] and [b] spaces, and the rings of circulation (type [c]) are trivial covering the same programmatic spaces. In a spatial system formed mainly by ‘b’ spaces, moving and occupying space are based on sequence (Hillier 1996), and we argued elsewhere (Capillé & Psarra, 2014) that the position of the transpatially-‐defined programmes in a spatially sequential order characterises a spatially strong programming17. In Fernando Botero, this sequence conserves social awareness in communities engaging in similar programmed activity.

17 In the paper we argue that a sequence of information desk (b-‐type), lending library (b-‐type) and children’s library (a-‐type) makes the use of the children’s library strongly programmed; whereas when it is associated to many other

59 - Staff

60 - Staff

61 - Staff

62 - Staff

63 - Staff

64 - Staff

65 - Staff

33 - Cluster

34 - Cluster

35 - Cluster

36 - Cluster

37 - Cluster

38 - Cluster

39 - Cluster

40 - Cluster

41 - Cluster

42 - Cluster


45 - Cluster

46 - Cluster

47 - Cluster

48 - Cluster

49 - Cluster

50 - Cluster

51 - Cluster

52 - Cluster

53 - Cluster

54 - Cluster

55 - Cluster

56 - Cluster

57 - Cluster

58 - Cluster

1 - Space

2 - Space

3 - Space

4 - Space

5 - Space

6 - Space

7 - Space

8 - Space

9 - Space

10 - Space

11 - Space

12 - Space

13 - Space

14 - Space

15 - Space 16 - Space17 - Space

18 - Space

19 - Space

20 - Space

21 - Space

22 - Space

23 - Space

24 - Space

25 - Space

26 - Space

27 - Space


30 - Space

31 - Space

32 - Space

1 - Space

2 - Space

3 - Space

4 - Space5 - Space

6 - Space

7 - Space

8 - Space

9 - Space

10 - Space

11 - Space

12 - Space

13 - Space

14 - Space

15 - Space

16 - Space

17 - Space

18 - Space

19 - Space


22 - Space


25 - Space

26 - Space

27 - Space

28 - Space

29 - Space

30 - Space

31 - Space

32 - Space

33 - Space

34 - Space

35 - Space

36 - Space

38 - Space

39 - Space

40 - Space

41 - Space

42 - Space

43 - Space

44 - Space

45 - Space

46 - Space

47 - Space

48 - Space

49 - Space

50 - Space

51 - Space


54 - Space

55 - Space

56 - Space

57 - Space


60 - Space

61 - Space

63 - Space

65 - Space

66 - Space

67 - Space

68 - Space

69 - Space


72 - Space

73 - Space 74 - Space

75 - Space

76 - Space

77 - Space

78 - Space

79 - Space

80 - Space

81 - Cluster

82 - Cluster

83 - Cluster



88 - Cluster

89 - Cluster

90 - Cluster

91 - Cluster

92 - Cluster

93 - Cluster

94 - Cluster

95 - Cluster

96 - Cluster 97 - Staff

98 - Staff

99 - Staff

100 - Staff

101 - Staff

102 - Staff

103 - Staff

104 - Staff

105 - Staff

1 - Space

2 - Space

3 - Space

4 - Space

5 - Space

6 - Space

7 - Space

8 - Space

9 - Space

10 - Space

11 - Space


14 - Space


17 - Space

18 - Space

19 - Space

20 - Space

21 - Space

22 - Space

23 - Space

24 - Space

25 - Space

26 - Space

27 - Space

28 - Space

29 - Space

30 - Space

31 - Space

32 - Space

33 - Space

34 - Cluster

35 - Cluster

36 - Cluster

37 - Cluster

38 - Cluster

39 - Cluster

40 - Cluster

41 - Cluster

42 - Cluster

43 - Cluster

44 - Cluster

45 - Cluster

46 - Cluster

47 - Cluster

48 - Cluster

49 - Cluster

50 - Cluster

51 - Cluster

52 - Cluster


55 - Cluster

56 - Cluster

57 - Cluster

58 - Cluster

59 - Cluster

60 - Cluster

61 - Cluster

62 - Cluster

63 - Cluster64 - Staff

65 - Staff

66 - Staff

67 - Staff

68 - Staff

69 - Cluster

a

c

b

a. San Javier - 7 communitesb. Fernando Botero - 7 communites

b. Belén - 8 communites

Arrows indicate buildings’ entrances;White boundaries and nodes’ colours indicate different

communities (based on modularity);Sizes of nodes indicate relative betweeness centrality;

Black edges highlight space-space connections;

Figure 8: Space-Practice Networks



16

In Belén Library-‐Park (Figures 6c, 7c, 8c, 9c, 10c), the 8 communities formed may be split into two different patterns (Figure 8c). In one side (we will call it ‘side A’), many communities of few spaces and user clusters surround the community shown in blue (Figure 8c), which is made of a great concentration of clusters of informal interactions, where almost no staff participates. Effectively, the only staff member that is part of this community works as a bridge between ‘side A’ and ‘side B’ of the network. In fact, this is the only staff that works as a bridge between communities in the whole building. ‘Side B’ refers to the portion of the network made of the communities shown in light yellow and light green colours (Figure 8c). In this part of the building, communities have a staff as a central node of “strong ties”, exposing their co-‐presence inside social groups formed by informal interactions. In ‘Side A’, peripheral communities are tied by many connections to the ‘core community’ (Figure 8c, in blue) of clusters of

programmes in no particular order (associations between d-‐type of spaces), its use is weakly programmed (Capillé and Psarra 2014).

a

c

b

Convex Integration Analyses

a. San Javier 0.450.490.43

1.221.041.69

b. Fernando Boteroc. Belen

floor 2floor 2

floor 1floor 1

first floor

ground floor

Figure 9: Convex Spaces Integration in (a) San Javier; (b) Fernando Botero; and (c) Belén.



17

informal interactions. This ‘core community’ is made of strong ties of co-‐presence and co-‐awareness of unprogrammed practices. This ‘core community’ is situated in the integration core of the building (Figure 9c), and is made of [c] and [d] types of spaces (Figure 10c, spaces 5, 9, 11, 12 and 17). This space is not programmed: it is the patio with a central reflecting pool that connects other programmes of the library. It mixes different activities, and through this co-‐presence emphasises the idea of a more informal type of social awareness. The rings of circulation, the connection to adjacent streets and the absence of surveillance give support to the formation of a network of communities that is structured around a community made of informal interactions.

[a] type space

[c] type space[d] type space

[b] type space

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1

2 3

4 5

6

7

8 9

10 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 20

21

22 23 24

25 26

27

28

29 30 31

32

3334

35 36

38

39

40

41

42

43 44 45

4647

48

4950

51

52

53

54 55 56

57

58

59 6061

63

65

66

67 68

69

70

71

72 73 74 75

76

77

78

79

80

[a] type space


[b] type space

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4 5 6 7

8

9

10

11

12

13 14 15 16

17

18

19 20

21

22

23 24

25 26 27

28

29 30

31

32

[a] type space


[b] type space

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4 5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25

26

27

28

29

30 31 32 33

[a] type space


[b] type space

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4 5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25

26

27

28

29

30 31 32 33

a

a

b

b

c

c

Figure 10: Justified graph of convex spatial structure of (a) San Javier; (b) Fernando Botero; and (c) Belén; exposing [a], [b], [c] and [d] types of spaces (see Hillier 1996:247-255).



18

5. Findings

This paper addresses the problem of how to assemble spatial structure, types of users based on different programmatic roles and social practices as interrelated networks in three Library-‐Parks of Medellín. It argues that these buildings have ambiguous roles, since they aim at allowing informal interactions, and at the same time educating users so as they can be integrated in a “21st century economy of production” (Empresa de Desarollo Urbano, 2014; Gallego, 2011). The paper suggests that these intentions imply socio-‐spatial tensions and potentially conflicts, since space becomes the common element in both the formation of informal communication and institutional control.

The study interrogates describing the structure of communities that happen only through informal spatial practices. It proposes that existing methods of empirically describing use as activity rates cannot capture how activities are spatially structured as networked spatial practices of social interaction. This paper defines the socio-‐spatial distribution of practices using network analysis rather than as probability distributions through statistics. In contrast to other studies using space syntax, the proposed method does not distinguish spaces and people from each other as different “layers of relationships” which are then understood separately and in comparison to each other. Rather, the study sees that spatial networks, informal social practices and staff control as part of the same “flat” system. In doing this, this work borrows from Actor Network Theory the idea that human and non-‐human actors interrelate in a social network (Latour, 1987, 2005; Yaneva, 2012). We propose that space can be considered as a non-‐human actor and explored in relation to its network of connections with human actors, or the different types of users in a building. The resulting maps (both planimetric and graph-‐theoretic maps) are instruments of socio-‐spatial relations and practice. The associations of human and non-‐human relationships in a network assembles the socio-‐spatial structure and reveals phenomena that would not be seen otherwise: that is, the variety of ways in which the Library-‐Parks structure informal interactions leading to form social groups and at the same time define institutional rules that discipline society. While this is a preliminary stage of methodological and analytical development, it contributes to empirical studies of space and use in space syntax beyond the conventional employment of use rates and statistical analysis. The way in which it contributes to Actor Network Theory is by including space and actual use in the representation, which with particular reference to Yaneva’s work (2012) is excluded from the network of connections.

In relation to the libraries, it is found that despite their similar programme the three buildings work in significantly different ways. At San Javier Library-‐Park, un-‐programmed spatial practices generate a sequence of disciplinary tactics. This is achieved firstly, by staff members who are the main ‘weak ties’ of the network, and as a result may control co-‐presence between communities; and secondly, by a constant surveillance of clusters of informal interactions by a staff member inside each separate community. Space works as the silent instrument of the application of these forms of control – be it by steering connections between communities to controlled thresholds, or by allowing panoptic views of social practices. Fernando Botero Library-‐Park is a different kind of network, where communities are linearly linked by ‘transition spaces’ that work as bridges (weak links). This aspect might indicate that this building cannot be seen as an integration of communities, but as a partitioning of communities with sharp spatial boundaries. Perhaps one could trace a similarity with Bernstein’s description of the schools with strong classification and framing (Bernstein, 2003). When communities have sharp boundaries between each other, they exclude the ‘outside world’ through a “highly selective screening of the connections” (2003:99), and those who are part of it hold a knowledge that is not shared with others – but remain internal to the group (2003). Finally, in Belén Library-‐Park a community of clusters of informal interactions becomes the gravitational core in the socio-‐spatial network. This ‘core community’ is spread in a series of spaces that are linked as a ring and which offer access to the other communities constructed around this central core. This ‘core community’ happens in the spaces that are generally used by visitors as an urban passage between adjacent streets.



19

The political implications of the analysis in these buildings in relation to the intentions of the Library park programme escapes the scope of this paper. Here we aim at setting the methodological framework for visualising and analysing the formation of these networks, and investigating their functioning. We do not intend with this work to criticise the libraries for changing their original role. Instead, we aim at understanding how this role relates to associations and formations of social interaction in the studied buildings. We see that this understanding we try to construct stresses the difference between abstract definitions of what architecture means as a social instrument of representation (since the Programme has invested on architecture as image) and as an actual field of social interaction (which is what we try to measure). The ways in which the Programme manifests its intentions through the symbolic use of architecture does not always guarantee what will be realised in every day practice. It is argued that to empower space and communities to be generative rather than conservative is less about prescribing the use of space (and expressing the symbolic power of buildings) and more about creating the socio-‐spatial conditions that allow unpredictability to flourish. In this sense, this analysis indicates that environments such as Belén Library-‐Park support the formation of informal interaction, which is crucial to self-‐organised communities. In fact, this type of building is perhaps capable of being central in constructing social awareness that surpasses the limits established by the Programme of Library Parks – both in spatial and transpatial dimensions.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank Herman Montoya (Leader of the Library-‐Park Programme at the Municipality of Medellín) and the staff members of the three libraries of this study for their assistance to our collection of data during the fieldwork. This research has been sponsored by Capes Foundation (Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES).

Bibliography:

Bernstein, B. (2003). Class, Codes and Control -‐ Towards a Theory of Educational Transmission. New York: Routledge. Brand, P., & Dávila, J. D. (2013). Metrocables and “Social Urbanism”: two complementary strategies. In J. Dávila (Ed.),

Urban mobility and Poverty: Lessons from Medellín and Soacha, Colombia (pp. 46–54). London: DPU-‐UCL and UNC-‐Medellín.

Capillé, C., & Psarra, S. (2014). Space and planned informality: Strong and weak programme categorisation in public learning environments. A|Z ITU Journal of Architecture, 11(2), 9–29.

Dávila, J. (2013). Introduction. In J. Dávila (Ed.), Urban mobility and Poverty: Lessons from Medellín and Soacha, Colombia (pp. 9–15). London: DPU-‐UCL and UNC-‐Medellín.

Dovey, K. (2008). Framing Places -‐ Mediating Power in Built Form (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Doxa, M. (2001). Morphologies of Co-‐presence in Interior Public Space in Places of Performance: The Royal Festival

Hall and the Royal National Theatre of London. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium. Atlanta.

Empresa de Desarollo Urbano. (2014). Proyectos Parques Biblioteca. Forgan, S. (1986). Context, Image and Function: a preliminary enquiry into the architecture of scientific societies. The

British Journal for the History of Science, 19(1), 89–113. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11611917

Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. (Alan Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1994). Power -‐ essential works of Foucault 1954-‐1984. (R. Hurley, Trans., J. Faubion, Ed.). London:

Penguin. Foucault, M. (2002). The Archeology of Knowledge (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Gallego, L. E. P. (2011). Las bibliotecas públicas de Medellín como motor de cambio social y urbano de la ciudad.

Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia I Documentació, (27), 11. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

doi:10.1086/225469 Hanson, J. (1996). The Architecture of Justice: iconography and space configuration in the English law court building.

Architectural Research Quarterly, 1(4), 50–59.



20

Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, and (2007), electronic edition, London: Space Syntax.

Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Hillier, B., Major, M. D., Desyllas, J., Karimi, K., Campos, B., & Stonor, T. (1996). Tate Gallery, Millbank: A study on the

existing layout and new masterplan proposal. London: UCL -‐ The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies. Hillier, B., & Netto, V. (2002). Society seen through the prism of space : outline of a theory of society and space.

URBAN DESIGN International, 7, 181–203. doi:10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000077 Hillier, B., & Penn, A. (1991). Visible Colleges. Science in Context, 1, 23–49. Hillier, B., Peponis, J., & Hanson, J. (1984). What do we mean by building function? In J. A. Powell, I. Cooper, & S. Lera

(Eds.), Designing for building utilisation (pp. 61–72). London: E & F.N. Spon Ltd. Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for

Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software. PLoS ONE, 9(6), 1–12. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0098679

Koch, D. (2004). Spatial Systems as Producers of Meaning -‐ the idea of knowledge in three public libraries. Licentiate Thesis, KTH School of Architecture.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-‐Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Markus, T. A. (1993). Buildings and Power -‐ Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

Melguizo, R. C., & Cronshaw, F. (2001). The Evolution of Armed Conflict in Medellín: An Analysis of the Major Actors. Latin American Perspectives, 28(1), 110–131. doi:10.2307/3185095

Montoya, H. (Lider del P. M. y P. (2014). Interview by author. Medellín: Unpublished. Newman, M. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Science, 103(23), 8577–82. doi:10.1073/pnas.0601602103 Noack, A. (2007). Energy Models for Graph Clustering. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 11(2), 453–480.

doi:10.7155/jgaa.00154 Noack, A. (2009). Modularity clustering is force-‐directed layout. Physical Review E -‐ Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft

Matter Physics, 79(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.79.026102 Penn, A., Desyllas, J., & Vaughan, L. (1997). The Space of Innovation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Space

Syntax Symposium. London: UCL. Peponis, J., Dalton, R. C., Wineman, J., & Dalton, N. (2004). Measuring the effects of layout upon visitors’ spatial

behaviors in open plan exhibition settings. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(3), 453–473. doi:10.1068/b3041

Psarra, S., Wineman, J., Xu, Y., & Kaynar, I. (2007). Tracing the modern: space, narrative and exploration in the Museum of Modern Art, New York. In Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. Istanbul.

Sailer, K. (2007). Movement in Workplace Environments: configurational or programmed? In Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 1–14). Istanbul.

Sailer, K., & Penn, A. (2009). Spatiality and Transpatiality in Workplace Environments. In D. Koch, L. Marcus, & J. Steen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 1–11). Stockholm: KTH.

Sears, R., & Crandall, M. (2010). Bridging between libraries and information and communication technologies for development. IFLA Journal, 36(1), 70–73.

Shoham, S., & Yablonka, I. (2008). Monumental Library Buildings in the Internet Era: the future of public libraries. IFLA Journal, 34(3), 266–279. doi:10.1177/0340035208097227

Tzortzi, K. (2007). Museum Building Design and Exhibition Layout: patterns of interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. Istanbul.

Verheul, I. (2010). The Digital Library Futures Conference and the future of digital libraries within IFLA. IFLA Journal. Sage.

Yaneva, A. (2012). Mapping controversies in architecture. Farnham: Farnham: Ashgate.

disciplined informality

Documents

social control

informal networks

observed informal interactions

beln libraries

social practices

disciplinary control

overt control

institutional rules