Spatial Perception and

Architecture
Perception is what the individual perceives on
a unique and subjective basis. I was much
more interested in investigating space as an
objective reality, exploring its universal
properties that could then be exploited in an
architectural design process.

The Visual Nature of Space

Experiencing space is a subtle act of the human body and mind.
We use our eyes to visually probe a space, making thousands of
subconscious computations every second. Wayfinding,
orientation, direction, etc. all come from visual clues. The lens of
our eye, with a 22mm focal length allows us to experience
perspective space in a consistent and readable way. Our neck and
eyes move, completing a spherical dome of information
surrounding us at any point. But, when a slight change is
introduced to this formula we start to question what exactly space
is.
For me, this slight change in experiencing space was photography.
For a few years I used an adjustable wide angle lens, appreciating
the ability to capture as much space as possible. This allowed me
to distort space, and experience it in a way that I never had before.
But this distortion was an experiential lie. Transitioning back to a
fixed 22mm lens, I learned that composition and spatial effects of
differential spatial typologies was much more important than the
ability to distort space. I felt the need to translate this back into my
architecture.

Although I have been designing architectural objects for many

years, it is not until I made these observations and conclusions
that I can say that I started designing spaces. The paces were
largely byproducts of a series of compromised design decisions,
creating spaces that often felt like leftovers, rather than being the
driver of the design. When considering how we experience each
different space early on in the design process. I find I’m able to
design spaces that are more pure, intimate, and spatially powerful.

Primacy of Space
Space is self evident, but the way we perceive it is not. Our brain
has built in mechanism that allow visual inputs to be recorded and
processed, outputting information almost simultaneously that we
then act upon. The processing of visual information sometimes
triggers cognitive loopholes. These loopholes are known as optical
illusions.

The image below is an example of an optical phenomenon called

shape constancy. Take your two hands, and hold them out in front
of your eye. Move one hand double the distance away from your
eye as the second, and make a mental note of their perceived size.
Now take your closer hand and measure the farther hand with
your index finger and thumb in a sort of pinching motion. Keep
this measurement hand where it is, and bring the hand which was
farther away back to your eye. Now you will realize that your brain
allowed you to perceive both hands at almost the same size,
irrespective of their distance away from your eye. This is the result
of memorizing sizes of known objects, and not a spatial effect.
There are numerous examples of optical illusions, but they do not
deal with the true nature of space. Illusions trick our brain’s visual
mechanics, and have limiting relevance on three dimensional
spatial effects.

Most importantly I would look at euclidean geometry, rectilinear

shapes, three dimensional geometry, and space and objects as
being real. My intent was not to question the existential nature of
space, but rather to investigate the way that physical spaces affect
us as conscious beings. This is the true nature of space, the
primacy of space.

Increasing Complexity
While conducting my research on the various topics of interest,
most writing made a series of basic conclusions, which was then
built upon to make further and more substantial claims. First, was
that past generations represent how they think about space
through images, and that visual art represented the spatial values
of each culture. I would argue that by looking exclusively at
images, one can not fully understand a culture’s understanding of
spatiality. An example of where this was not true was in ancient
Greece, whose architecture was much more spatially refined than
their art from the same period. A second common assumption
discovered in my readings is that our development to read space is
directional, and that Greek thinking would not have emerged
without Egyptian. Lars Macussen goes as far as to say that, “if a
Renaissance image had popped up among the Ancient Egyptians,
they would not have been capable of seeing it as spatial in the
same way”. This conclusion also has its problems, as there is an
abundance of new research that has been produced in the last
decade that suggests there is an objective aspect to our spatial
perception that is universal to all people. Another type of
increasing complexity in spatial representation are the medium
and techniques we use to represent space.

Historical Spatial Development

The rows below move from left to right in chronological
development. The columns, from top to bottom represent
geometric knowledge, bodily orientation in space and the built
environment of each culture. Starting with pre-civilization, one
can observe that the concept of geometry was undeveloped. Their
geometric knowledge, migration through space, and method of
dwelling was almost exclusively influenced by nature and
movement. Next comes the development of calendar and circular
cultures. The ability to trace simple shapes in sand gave the first
signs of geometrical hierarchy, and their observance of the cosmos
allowed them to begin forecasting the rising of the sun, seasons,
and astronomical events. A defining parameter was the worship of
the world axis. This coincided with the ability to live in larger
settlements and organize themselves in a system of grouped
circular structures.
Next, comes the Egyptian's elementary arithmetic and more
complex geometric typologies. Almost simultaneously arose the
ability to work in stone and build more complex structures,
oriented loosely on perpendicular axes. This contrasts the system
of the Greeks, who saw each object as a representation of beauty
and perfection, inherited by an order deriving from the heavens
and Gods. Each object, especially temples, were placed so that they
could be experienced as delimited, plastic objects in space. The
Romans had a more elaborate social-caste system. To organize
their society, their architectural typologies were rigidly organized
by axiality. A soldier could enter any Roman encampment and
know where to find each programmatic function. The spatial
organization of the Renaissance can be characterized by the
discovery of perspective, creation of objects in space, and
predefined dramatic views.

Postmodern vs Contemporary
Deconstructivism is a linguistic movements of the middle to late
twentieth century that focused on the primacy of language.
Essentially, the deconstructivist believed that an individual's
perception was predetermined by their thoughts, knowledge, and
cultural background. Classifications became the defining factor of
perception, with some even denying the possibility of visual
imagination altogether. This linguistic movement became the
basis for Postmodern architecture, as it also adopted the viewpoint
that language and therefore symbolism were essential building
blocks of architecture.
The contemporary or orthodox view, taken by philosophers and
psychologists in the past two decades, is that perception and
language are not the same thing, and perception or
conceptualization does not occur instantaneously. Rather, people
first perceive, then we think, and thirdly we conceptualize or
express thoughts. The distinction between these two methods of
perceiving space is important. The architectural postmodernists
used symbolism to give meaning to their architectural concepts. If
one accepts the contemporary view, one can deduce that language-
based architecture was an intellectual exercise in building a series
of symbolic objects. The problem is that this symbolism could not
be universally read, and the architecture offered little in terms of
objective spatial qualities. The contemporary view allows for the
design and experience of space without needing stories and
symbolism. Without needing an allegory, the power and primacy
of space becomes much more important. This creates the scenario
where architects do not need to reference something outside of
architecture. Architecture can then be made up of
simple, proto architectural elements.

Importance of Scale
The perception of space, although mostly visual, is largely based
on our relationship with scale. Our sense of scale is complemented
by bodily sense, primarily through haptic feedback. According to
the theories Alois Regel (1858–1905) and his Aesthetic Model,
there are three main scales that we experience space; near, middle
and far range.
 small/near: at this scale we are able to best understand
complex curvilinear geometry. When we can take in the entire
object, grasp it, rotate it, etc then we are able to build a mental
map of the object and understand it much easier than if we
experience only individual pieces at a time
 medium/middle: here we experience a portion of an object a
time.Texture and clarity are important if the intent is for the
user to understand the spaces or architecture as a whole.
Curvilinear forms cease to be effective, because they go beyond
the scale of the human body, and we can not form a mental
map their entirety. Shading and contrast becomes important
when understanding objects in a space at a distance.
 large /far: when experiencing architectural objects from a
large distance, the ability for tactile understanding fades out.
Simple forms and colour are most important. We lack the
optical dexterity to interpret complex forms, and therefore high
contrast forms or materials are important.

Spatial vs Visual
How we experience space is largely determined by our
biopsychology. In 2014 research from Edvard and May-Britt
Moser won the Nobel Prize for Physiology and medicine. They
discovered a series of geometric grid-like cells inside the brain of
rat, in an area known as the entorhinal cortex. These cells, which
are also present in the human brain, function much like a GPS
system, allowing us to spatially map and navigate space in an
objective way. By using acceleration, movement and speed, our
brain records how we move through space. This means that for
each spatial situation, there is an objective recording and reading
occurring within our brains. We are able to dimensionally map
rough floor plans and sectional relationships within our brain,
using spatial information written by our internal GPS.

Supplementing the spatial recording in the entorhinal cortex is a

recording of visual properties in the hippocampus. This deal withs
recording colours, textures and recalling memories that have
occurred in visually similar spaces. A complex series of
information exchange occurs between these two distinct portions
of our brain, allowing us to write, recall and place memories. This
duality help explains why memory is so closely tied to place.

The discovery of the entorhinal cortex disproves the linguistic

theory of deconstructivism. If every person has the ability to write
spatial memories, then it is not our language or culture that
dictates how we react to a space, but rather a combination of
objective human nature and hyper-individualistic responses. The
spatiality of various architectural typologies are powerful not
because of their cultural meaning but in the way that they are able
to affect the biopsychology of an individual in a particular moment
and time in their life.

Spatial Types
Symmetrical spaces create the effect of monumentality. The
perfect reflection of one space along an axis creates a subservient
role for the user. Asymmetrical spaces are less monumental by
their very nature, as they allow for more variation and dynamicism
and do not have such a rigid hierarchy.

The spatial effects of scale differ as to whether it is the absolute

scale of an object or space or relative to that of another. Absolute
scale is best used when the user can experience a large object and
slowly approach it, fully understanding its vastness. Variations in
scale are best used in section. Entering narrow passageways before
being led into an expansive void is a compelling spatial effect.

The spatial effect of bearing and being borne is especially effective

because it is universal. It is a common to all cultures and all
architectural movements. The very essence of architecture or
building is the constant fight against gravity, the suspending of an
object off of the ground. The more reduced this structural
relationship is, the more elementary it becomes.

Porosity is the measure of voids within a solid. It exists purely in

three dimensions and is spatially significant because it creates
spaces that are varied and interconnected. It blurs the hard
boundaries between space and architectural elements. Porous
objects are varied in their scale and composition, characteristics
that put the user in the forefront of the space or object.

“I do not claim to know what space is. The

longer I think about it, zhe more mysterious it
becomes. About one thing, however, I am sure:
when we, as architects are concerned with
space, we are contending with but a tiny part
of the infinity that surrounds the earth and yet
each and every building marks a unique place
in that infinity”. — Peter Zumthor

Spatial Conclusions
There are numerous spatial effects that have been used compelling
throughout the history of architecture. It is our role as architects to
evaluate each project, site, client and function with careful
consideration and to decide which types of spaces we want to
create. We should never forget that the vessels we are designing
are there to contain space and that powerful spaces have a primacy
that goes far beyond that of provocative shapes. Architecture is
one of the only professions that create space and we should
embrace the opportunity to better understand the spatial qualities
we are designing. By doing so, architects have the chance to
reposition the value of our role in the process of conceptualizing,
designing and building an architectural object.
https://medium.com/studiotmd/spatial-perception-and-architecture-4f8ab99eeb41