The MIT Press Camiiridge, Massachusetts London, England

Ordina

F o r m and C o n t r o l i n the B u i l t E n v i r o n m e n t
N.

J. Habraken

edited by Jonathan Teicher

Chapter I

Form, the Physical Order

The Physical Structure of Built Environment

II

13

15

Chapter 7

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 6

125

1.1 Live Configurations

16

7.1 C o n t r o l o f Space

126

32

7.2 Territory and C o n t r o l

128

1.3 Built Environments Seek E q u i l i b r i u m

26

7.3 Inhabitation and Territory

132

1.4 The Identity o f Agents

28

7.4 T e r r i t o r i a l Hierarchy

136

1.5 Dominance and Dependence

32

7.5 H o r i z o n t a l Relations Are Avoided

140

r.6 Control D i s t r i b u t i o n

36
Observing Territorial Structure

143

Recognizing Levels

41

8.1 T e r r i t o r i a l Structure i n D i f f e r e n t Environments

144

2.1 Levels and Intervention

42

8.2

2.2 Levels Revealed by Use

46

8.3 House and T e r r i t o r y

154

2.3 The Urban Facade

50

8.4 Public Space

158

Hierarchies of Enclosure

55

Territory and

163

Chapter 9

Urban Form as T e r r i t o r i a l Form

Buildings

150

3.1 Forms o f Enclosure

56

9.1 Street and House

164

3.2 A Classification of D w e l l i n g Modes

60

9.2 Territory and B u i l d i n g

170

3.3 A Hierarchy o f Enclosure Forms

64

9.3 W i t h i n the City Block

172

Changes in Enclosure Hierarchy

69

Gates

iBi

Chapter 1 0

4.1 Emergence o f a Level

Chapter 5

Territory

1.2 Levels

Chapter 8
Chapter 2

Place, the Territorial Order

r o . l Seven Gates

182

4.2 W i t h and w i t h o u t the F u r n i t u r e Level

78

10.3 T e r r i t o r i a l Gates

184

4.3 Disappearance o f a Level

82

10.3 Gates vi'ithout T e r r i t o r i a l Meaning

188

The Act of Building

87

In and Out of Territory

193

5.1 Assembly Hierarchies

88

II.I

194

5.2 Dominance Hierarchy and Assembly Hierarchy

92

r i . 2 Supply Form and D w e l l i n g

r98

5.3 Inside the Assembly Chain

96

I I . 3 Limitations o f T e r r i t o r i a l A u t o n o m y

202

Shifts in Territorial Structure

207

5.4 Traditions of Two Stage B u i l d i n g

100

5.5 Gravity Recognized

io6

Other Forms at Play

Chapter I I

Chapter 1 2

Supply Form and Territory

12.1 H o r i z o n t a l Shifts i n T e r r i t o r i a l D i v i s i o n

208

12.2 Vertical Shifts i n T e r r i t o r i a l D i v i s i o n

210

6.1 Supply Forms

112

12.3 Increase i n T e r r i t o r i a l Depth

214

6.2 Nets, Grids, and Webs

ng

12.4 Decrease i n T e r r i t o r i a l Depth

218

Territory

rather than studying agents directly I n observ-

Territorial Space D e f i n e d
W h a t does i t mean to control space?

habitants.

and

motivations

o f individual i n -

Rather, i n focusing on how

the

Control of f o r m is a matter of transforma-

that represent agents acting on them. Territory

organization of parts i n the environment is gov-

w i l l thus be recognized as space i n t o w h i c h only

erned by territorial rules, we w i l l seek to deter-

i m p l y transformation o f space: to t r a n s f o r m

certain items may enter. The ability to move

m i n e how, based on the movement o f parts,

space requires acting on the material parts that

material things across borders is the ultimate

territorial boundaries can be deduced, I n short,

make that space. This i n t u r n means trans-

test of territorial control.

we are interested i n the overlapping relation-

f o r m i n g a material configurationthat is, con-

The act o f strolling down a neighbor's

t r o l l i n g f o r m . Yet control o f space is clearly

walk and r i n g i n g his doorbell falls w i t h i n nor-

distinct f r o m control o f f o r m .

mal

social conventions, and thus i t does not

Control o f space denotes the ability to de-

constitute a territorial violation. Sitting d o w n

fend that space against unwanted i n t r u s i o n .

uninvited o n the curb bordering a neighbor's

dis-

suburban lawn represents at most a m i n o r ter-

tinguishing such territory is fundamental to

ritorial incursion. The neighbor will most likely

inhabiting the earth. Territorial control is the

treat you as a guest, albeit an uninvited one. But

ability to close a space, to restrict entry It is per-

place your garbage can on his lawn, and he w i l l

haps the most instinctive way by w h i c h humans

express displeasure.

have learned to understand b u i h environment

C o n t r o l of Space

erences

tempt to h m i t our observation to material parts

t i o n o f f o r m . But control o f space cannot simply

Space under control is territorial, and

Again, we w i l i not i n q u i r e into the pref-

ing the control o f space, we w i l l similarly at-

(and also, m u c h earlier, naturallandscape}.

H u m a n behavior can surely reveal cases

of territorial i n f r i n g e m e n t . But i n a study o f

The very act o f i n h a b i t a t i o n o f occu-

built environment it is appropriate, once more,

pying a space and selecting what comes i n and

to focus first on the location and the movement

what stays outis f u n d a m e n t a l l y territorial.

of inanimate material parts i n order to learn

I n what follows, the built environment is ob-

about territorial structure.

served as a territorial organization, as space under the control o f agents. We w i l i f i n d a distinct

hierarchical structure related to the hierarchies

C o n t r o l l i n g Space and Form

of f o r m .
I n the environmental game, players control
spaces i n addition to configurations of f o r m .

Control of Space and of Physical Parts

Rules determine how parts are admitted or excluded f r o m territorial space. Generally speak-

Previously, i n observing live configurations and

ing, to exercise control o f a configuration, one

the levels defined by them, we examined the be-

had better be i n control of its space as well. But

havior of configurations under agents' control.

there are

exceptions

and

variations.

Under

certain conditions, i t is possible to control a

configuration i n someone else's territory or
to have one's territory w i t h i n another agent's
Greaf Wall of China, near Beijing (page 123).
7.1
124).

Cairo, 1978~Home!ess shelter in a mosque (page

configuration.

ship between
control.

physical f o r m and territorial

Territory

Form Replaces A c t i o n

for example, stones placed by the wayside dur-

fall w i t h i n the territory o f the party w h o erects

i n g colonial times throughout Massachusetts,

them; at other times they are shared forms

Territory is defined by acts o f occupation. Form,

w h i c h indicate the crossing over m u n i c i p a l bor-

straddling a boundary

as such, does not yet come i n t o play A corre-

ders. Today, stamped metal highway signs sig-

Landscaping i n the N o r t h A m e r i c a n sub-

sponding space f o r m e d by physical parts is not

nal the name of the jurisdiction being entered.

u r b represents an anomaly, carefully designed

required f o r territorial space to exist. A l l that is

needed is an agent exercising spatial control.

Territory and Control

settlers

i n the

American

West

to avoid explicit boundary marks. The lawn is

"staked out" their claims w i t h sticks driven i n

open and unprotectedalthough often subtly

Purely territorial control w i t h o u t any i n -

the g r o u n d at the corners. Such signs, like

markedto convey a sense o f affluence and

dication o f a spatial f o r m can be observed o n

m a r k i n g the corners o f one's territory o n the

freedom, an image o f the house standing free

the beach i n summer. Individuals or groups oc-

beach, symbolically replaced action. A token

i n the prairie, unbounded. Yet each boundary is

cupy part o f a planar surface. Unseen bound-

was placed i n preference to patrolling the invis-

k n o w n and vigorously defended by the neigh-

aries are observed despite the absence o f walls

ible border. The boundary was then read by

bors who share it. The lawn is regularly m o w n ,

or property stakes. C h i l d r e n and pets are re-

means o f its markers. Physical acts o f control

retracing the presumed property line on a con-

trieved on violating such boundaries. W h e n a

were only needed when, whether intentionally

tinuous lawn surfacea horticultural act con-

ball lands w i t h i n a n e i g h b o r i n g domain, it is re-

or by mistake, markers were unheeded.

firming

covered w i t h due apology.

=2

Early

Forms may not convey consistent territo-

the territorial claim. Rear side-yard

fences frequentiy appear as well.

As Edward T. H a l l and others have dem-

rial meaning. A fenced pen, f o r instance, is

Space read into f o r m and territorial con-

onstrated, personal space is a universal phe-

there to keep animals i n , not to keep trespass-

trol o f space are quite distinct. The heavy f r o n t

nomenon, although the particular dimensions

ers out: the territorial boundary lies elsewhere.

door, though clearly a boundary f o r m , is n o t

of such space are culturally determined.' Rea-

Walls and gates likewise divide space, and may

necessarily a territorial marker i n the suburban

sonable proximity i n one culture is i n t r u s i o n i n

or may not mark territory. Consequently, one is

house. The enclosure f o r m e d by the house

another. Personal space, as described by Hall,

never sure whether the untested m a r k e r a n d

shell, w i t h its f r o n t porch and entry, is not the

has strong territorial connotations.

its i n t e n t i s territorial. I f so, is i t backed by

territorial

Territory likewise represents the inhabi t i n g and controlling agent's spatial extension

real enforcing power?

Forms that seem to indicate territory are

boundary.

The

territorial

bound-

ary, as determined by the transfer of surveyed

land on w h i c h the house is buUt, exists some-

But territory cannot be maintained

constantly tested. W h e n no response follows a

merely by gestures and body language. Artifacts

boundary incursion, i t becomes evident that a

I n a similar way, territory historically

may serve to represent the bounds o f control

marker is just a stone: o f historical value per-

ranged far beyond the turrets and gates o f a

exercised. We tend to mark our territory by to-

haps, but indicating no "live" territory. Bound-

town's walls. I t included the pale o f settlement

kens. Such indications are usually read easily

aries may then be crossed at w i l l .

around the town, a realm w i t h i n

o f self

by others, w i t h o u t error: we ah understand territorial meaning i n the positioning o f objects.

Only the marked boundary backed u p by

real control is taken seriously.

where at the periphery o f the lawn.

untamed

nature that was frequently cultivated by the citizens, but at other times just remained an uncul-

Even o n the beach, we see the beginnings o f de-

tivated claim. The m u n i c i p a l boundary

marcation o f turf: chairs, towels, beach bags,

marked w i t h a stone at the wayside and other-

and other belongings are placed strategically to

Sheltering Form vs. T e r r i t o r i a l Claim

claim space.

was

wise established by legal deed and by custom.

I n t i m e o f war, however, open land w o u l d

The most basic territorial demarcations

Varied customs and laws deal w i t h erecting and

be abandoned. A t the first sign o f attack, the ter-

are n o t waUs, fences, or other f o r m s of enclo-

m a i n t a i n i n g the c o m m o n boundary between

ritorial line w i t h d r e w behind the fortification

sure, but the simple stone or stake that may

neighbors. Fences, walls, or plantings usually

walls.^ Once danger or siege had passed, the ter-

mark the t u r n o f a boundary line or where a

mark property bounds. These f o r m s sometimes

ritory w o u l d again expand. Individual claim

path crosses that boundary There stifi remain.

12 9

was again laid to customary boundaries, either

ignored: it is subjected to interpretation, spa-

by the act o f cultivation or by other assertions

tially and temporally

I n the examples cited above, street wall

of control,
Throughout
ary shifts, actual

the

territorial

physical f o r m s

bound-

and sidewalk curb f o r m a m^argin, a zone w i t h i n

remained

which the boundary may move. The actual territorial boundary is indicated not by the b u i l d i n g

constant.

but by lower-level configurations and parts. The

shop, for instance, leaves part o f the sidewalk

Shifts in T e r r i t o r i a l Claim

free f o r passage and positions its boundary

Temporary occupation of sidewalk space is

termined by custom, practical use, and occa-

c o m m o n ; f o r commercial uses, i t is universal.

sional negotiation.

somewhere between b u i l d i n g and road as de-

Sidewalk occupation varies f r o m placing dis-

I n the corridors o f elegant apartments as

creet signs to indicate restaurant entrances, to

well, inhabitants may place potted plants, door

actually displaying wares i n f r o n t o f a shop w i n -

mats, and umbrella stands i n f r o n t o f their en-

dow, to creating sidewalk cafs.

tries. Their claim, paralleling the shopkeeper's,

Hole-in-the-wall

may

literally

describe

is understood and respected as an identification

shops i n many ancient cities, as i t has since be-

of territory I n both cases, the m a r g i n created

fore the t i m e o f the Roman taherna and M i d d l e

softens and articulates the razor-thin line o f de-

Eastern souk {see figures 15.2 and 8.4). U p o n

marcation offered by the architecture.

opening, the shop door is unlocked. The shop-

I n these ways, we act out s h i f t i n g spatial

keeper then extracts wares and places t h e m on

claims i n relation to stable f o r m . Territorial

the sidewalk. A cloth may span overhead to pro-

boundaries are established by acts. Such acts

vide shade, f u r t h e r expanding the sidewalk

usually seek stable f o r m s to relate to, i f not al-

claim by an act o f occupation.

ways to abide by

Such practices are not restricted to exotic

climes. Sidewalks are habitually used by M a n hattan's greengrocers,

as well as by any vari-

ety o f shops l i n i n g Canal Street. I n all cases,

u n m a r k e d exterior boundary lines extend the
assumed property lines w i t h i n the party walls
between shops. The territory withdraws back
behind a modest storefront by sundown, when
the shop closes up and all its wares are stored
for the night. W h e n the shopkeeper leaves f o r
home,

so too does the power to sustain

wider territory
Thus b u i l t f o r m may suggest territory
but i t is the ongoing act o f occupation that fixes
the actual extent o f the claim. I n playing the territorial game, the more permanent f o r m is not

A r c h i t e c t u r a l Form I n t e r p r e t e d by

as corridors were u n k n o w n or rarely used.

Inhabitation

Within

an

architecture

that

offered varied

spaces o f power and dignity, people settled i n t o

The features o f every f o r m , natural and built,

daily life, creating places to sit, to eat, to sleep.

offer potential territorial boundaries.

The Gothic Venetian palace, the Enghsh manor,

Rivers

and m o u n t a i n ranges are natural invitations f o r

and many vernacular house types similarly of-

boundary lines. But as any map reveals, they are

fer clearly articulated architecture, and spatial

not the ultimate determinants of boundaries:

organization f i r m l y established by the enclos-

neighbors adopt borders

ing f o r m s , w i t h o u t strictly d e f i n i n g a specific

along geographical

features only when they serve the prevailing

balance

o f power. Architectural and

space f u n c t i o n i n m u c h the same way, o f f e r i n g

an articulated context on w h i c h inhabitants i m pose territorial interpretations.

7-3

Inhabitation
Territory

and

program f o r any given uses.

urban

The early-seventeenth-century Dutch canal house (figure 17.3) exhibited a range o f

rooms. Their spaces were large by current standards, d i f f e r i n g i n characteristic shape, height,

Built f o r m plays a dual role relative to ter-

character o f light, and so on: the architecture is

ritory. On one hand, humans express territory

not neutral. The entry hall has a very h i g h ceil-

explicitlybuilding wails, m a k i n g gates, and

ing. I t is l i t by t a windows, w i t h a mezzanine-

placing marker stones. O n the other hand, we

like space behind. Upstairs, ceiling heights

draw i m p l i c i t l y understood territorial bound-

vary again.

aries as custom and inhabitation dictate, w i t h i n

I n contrast to dramatic sectional differ-

the artificial landscape o f the built environ-

ences between rooms, the plans r e m a i n rather

ment. Often, as i n the shopkeeper's claim o f

generic. We cannot read functions i n r o o m size

sidewalk space marked by the placement o f

or location, For instance, the oversize space that

wares, territorial boundaries are drawn by set-

accommodates

ting lower-level objects i n relation to architec-

sleeping alcove, a b u i l t - i n bed closed o f f by cur-

tural f o r m . Territory interprets architecture, but

tains. The sleeping alcove is an added configu-

by no means i n strict obeisance to i t .

ration w i t h a dedicated f u n c t i o n , i n the m a n n e r

a kitchen may also contain a

o f fireplace and window. Neither the alcove nor

the h a l l i n w h i c h i t was b u i l t constitutes what

Space and Function

we now call a bedroom.

We are so conditioned to label every r o o m by

types rarely assumed f u n c t i o n names:

Historically spaces i n vernacular house

mezza-

f u n c t i o n , i n conversations and floor plans alike,

nine, hall, attic, cellar, stoop, and porch do not de-

that i t has become d i f f i c u l t to understand that

scribe functions. Actions and f u n c t i o n s i n the

people instinctively settle b u i l t space. Yet inhab-

b u i l d i n g were linked not to specific rooms or

itation remains fundamentally territorial, not

spaces as m u c h as to specific attributes or con-

functional.

figurations

present; fireplace, type o f window,

Ancient palaces offered progressions of

halls o f great character, yet devoid of any f o r m a l
indication responding to specific use,

Users

passed through space after space i n succession.

7.2

VeniceGothic palace floor plan, Illustrating dual

entry from canal and street After Maretto.

rived or projected f r o m a single p o i n t i n time.

doors giving onto street or backyard. Such attri-

w i t h spatial character. Specific locations f o r the

butes encouraged certain uses by o f f e r i n g a fit

daily f u n c t i o n s of life, w i t h all o f their h u m a n -

Function-specific spatial translation then gen-

location: one w i t h w a r m t h , light, a view to the

size territorial claims, were not predefined. Ter-

erates the i n i t i a l f o r m diagram. Rather than

street, a place to withdraw. Each architectural

ritorial boundaries

individuals and

suggesting broad architectural possibility f o r

element invited small acts o f settlement, w h i c h

groups of people were accordingly more com-

inhabitation, the resulting f o r m may seek to

created territorial zones w i t h i n the large rooms.

plex and fluid, far less dependent on walls and

l i m i t capacity to the one f u n c t i o n that is i n -

Thus, architecture supported inhabita-

doors, than those w h i c h m o d e r n f u n c t i o n a l -

tended, i n an approach that ignores the iterative

i s m supports.

nature o f the process o f m u t u a l self-definition

tion by o f f e r i n g a varied topography o f spaces

between

o f f o r m and inhabitation.

and f o r m s . A t times, the very entities to w h i c h

The historical absence o f f u n c t i o n a l spec-

people Hnked their activitiesfireplace, w i n -

ificity i n architecture was by no means attribut-

Each act o f settiement relies on articu-

dow, sleeping alcove, and so onwere them-

able to poverty o f means or o f inventiveness.

lated f o r m to stimulate f u r t h e r interpretation.

selves hke lower-order f o r m s , i n h a b i t i n g the

Reading the due de Saint-Simon's

Given the increasing fluidity and variety o f con-

larger b u i l d i n g .

m e m o i r s , we conclude that even i n l i f e at Ver-

temporary life, the functionalist approach may

sailles, the richly decorated and generously ap-

prove to be a short-lived phenomenon. Inhab-

portioned spaces defined n o t h i n g m o r e specific

itation remains fundamentally territorial, and

than a regal context.^ Smaller-scale settlement

architecture may r e t u r n to the articulation o f

came

space that is open to acts o f inhabitation.

T e r r i t o r i a l Occupation

from

later

decisions

and

elaborate

territorial

I n the Pompeiian house, cultural and cosmo-

claims, supported by f u r n i t u r e and

logical f u n c t i o n dictated that the

smaller

ancestral

utensils. The four-poster bed and chair were

shrine be placed on axis w i t h i n the a t r i u m , i n

not merely f u r n i t u r e placed i n a private space:

an area m a r k i n g the transition to a more private

they created private space. As a means o f inhab-

zone o f the house, the tahlinum.

Yet that niche

itation unto themselves, they claimed territory

also served as reception area and repository of

that frequently occupied only part o f a large

f a m i l y mementos (see figures 12.2 and 15.2).

room.

The Chinese ancestral shrine is located i n

I n perceiving acts and objectsno less

a similar position, this t i m e on axis w i t h the

than walls and doorsas territorial dehnea-

center o f the pavilion located at the rear o f the

tions, we begin more f u l l y to understand elabo-

m a i n courtyard. This pavilion was also where

rate salutations, compliments, bows, and other

the f a m i l y gathered, where visitors m i g h t be en-

customary gestures. These inordinately com-

tertained, where meals m i g h t be shared. A t the

plex social acts also represent probings, as-

same time, i t also served as the daytime abode

sertions,

for the patriarch o f the house. Such m u l t i p l e

boundaries,

and

readjustments

both

of

invisible

spatial and psychological.

capacity f o r varying use was intrinsic to the ar-

People populated Versailles's vast halls as they

chitecture; i t d i d not result f r o m p r o g r a m m i n g

w o u l d have populated a landscape, strategically

multipurpose space.

positioning themselves and their f u r n i t u r e to

The n o t i o n that f o r m should precisely accommodate inhabitation i n a tightly engineered

claim and domesticate i t and accompanied by

no less strategic gestures and language.

and o p t i m i z e d fitthat i t m u s t m i r r o r or be

The contrast w i t h contemporary func-

molded by a p r o g r a m s i m p l y did not exist i n

tionalism is stark. Current architectural prac-

prior epochs. The architecture o f the large me-

tice first formulates and fijces highly specific

dieval hall, rustic barn, or palace defined f o r m

program prior to design. The program is de-

Terri to ry

A n Asymmetrical Relation

though the landlord may refuse to let pets i n

are, they all are contained w i t h i n the same, con-

his house, and therefore into the boarder's

stant territory A.

Territorial control is the ability to exclude, to

r o o m , the boarder also maintains the right to

shut the door, selectively a d m i t t i n g only who

exit her r o o m any time, to enter the landlord's

and what we desire.

space and proceed toward the exit door, to enter

But while territorial power can legitimately shut

restricted

out, it may not confine. U n -

freedom

to

exit

is

Situations o f variable territorial depth can be

implicitly

understood. Conversely such restriction repre-

depicted, adapting the d i a g r a m m i n g technique

Hierarchy Based on Inclusion

o f figure 7.3. Figure 7,4 adds included territories C w i t h i n territory B. Territorial depth is

sents a rude and unconventional act. Under

Territorial

Hierarchy

T e r r i t o r i a l Depth

the street.

many circumstances, i t is illegal. Thus the cur-

Territorial organization is f o u n d e d on the prin-

measured by the number o f boundary cross-

few represents an extraordinary exercise o f

ciple o f inclusion w i t h i n other territories. A

ings (indicated by arrows i n figure 7.5) needed

power: negation o f the order established by ter-

simple diagram presents the basic territorial

to move f r o m the outer space to the innermost

ritorial convention.

situation.

territory.

The relationship existing between spaces

Given the territory o f a boarder, a rented

o n opposite sides o f a gate is therefore asym-

room that is i n t u r n w i t h i n a house included i n

metrical. One may always exit: f r o m b u n k bed

the larger territory o f a neighborhood, i t is clear

i n t o bedroom, f r o m bedroom into house, f r o m

that the landlord's territory. A, i n figure 7.3 en-

Private and Public Space

house into street, f r o m city into surrounding

compasses the boarder's r o o m , B. The total ter-

countryside. But m o v i n g i n the reverse direc-

ritory o f the housethe s u m o f space behind

and the lot converted into a public playground,

tion, one is subject to scrutiny at each door of

the f r o n t doorremains constant,

whether

the total size o f neighborhood A does not i n -

Should house B i n figure 7.3 be demohshed,

one

one, two, or no rooms are rented. The boarder's

crease. The neighborhood, as one territory, ex-

pleases. Strangers seeking admission to a com-

r o o m is part o f the larger territory w i t h i n w h i c h

hibits two kinds o f space: space occupied by

p o u n d may be refused. Once granted entry into

it constitutes an included territory.

houses (B) and space not so occupied (A m i n u s

gate, unable to simply enter wherever

the street beyond the gate, they may not ran-

I n the same diagram, A may represent

domly enter any b u i l d i n g . Moreover, permis-

the neighborhood or t o w n and B the house i n

houses w i t h their lots private

sion to enter a given house does not convey

it, Again, no matter how many houses there

definitions o f private and public are illusory, as

B). We tend to call the latter public space, and

space. But fixed

permission to enter any bedroom, nor to occupy any desk or bed,

This asymmetry imphes hierarchy Territories situate themselves w i t h i n larger territories;

conversely

they

may

contain

other

territories. Thus the town, w h i c h is situated i n

7.3

The territorial principle of inclusionThe existence

of included territories in A also results in the presence af

public and private spaces there.

the county contains the house. The occupant of

the house may accept a boarder, i n w h i c h case
one r o o m becomes an included territory w i t h i n

A-B
public space

the house.
At each boundary the asymmetry holds.
Someone living i n a boardinghouse maintains
the right to shut the door o f her r o o m : even the
landlord must ask permission to enter. A l -

Bl

B2

B3

B1

B2

B3

B
private space

^37

B1

l i n g higher levels dominate agents controlling

lower levels.

1
B2

B1

B2

83

Cl

Dominance

B3

B2

i n hierarchies

o f f o r m is

manifested i n the ability to transform, f o r c i n g

Cl

C2

C2

lower-level configurations

to adjust

transformation. I n hierarchies

to

that

o f inclusion,

dominance is expressed by refusing admittance

to included territories. Goods and parties canTerritorial inclusion occurring in increasing deptil

not pass through en route to lower-level terri-

Territory B may include territories C, resulting in tiie pres-

tory. Massachusetts does not admit handguns

7.4

ence of public and private spaces in B.

into its commonwealth; therefore, citizens may

not transport firearms across its border to their
homes. I f a landlord does not admit cats i n his
house, the boarder cannot keep a cat i n her

becomes

clear

i n examining

situations

of

vatc space is that w h i c h is occupied by included

room: it is contraband.

territories, and public space is whatever remains

W h e n higher-level agents control what

The terms are quite relative. I f a hotel

after such inclusion. W h i l e territory itself is

goes into included territories, included agents

guest quits her r o o m and joins a colleague i n

neither pubhc nor private, each territory con-

must, as a rule, accept the imposed Hmitations

the foyer, she clearly enters pubUc space. W h e n

tains spaces that are public, private, or both.

on what filters through the higher level.

she exits the hotel, she again enters public

A territory can simultaneously occupy a private

space. A t the end o f the day, she returns. Step-

space, included i n a larger t e r r i t o r y and contain

p i n g out o f a cab, she leaves the city streets and

public space, relative to its o w n included territo-

Moving Through the Territorial

passes t h r o u g h the hotel's doorway, r e t u r n i n g

ries, as is the case w i t h a gated community.

Hierarchy

greater territorial depth, as i n figure 7.5,

Finally there is a clear distinction be-

to the foyer: this t i m e , the foyer represents pri-

tween the designation of space as private

vate space, relative to the street.

and

A l l space is continuously hnked by the com-

The fact that privateness and publicness

the degree o f privacy it affords. The first t e r m is

bined principle o f selective entry and

are not static conditions causes m u c h confu-

territorial, the second is not. Neither backyards

stricted exit. I n m o v i n g f r o m one place to

sion. Architects and planners confronted w i t h

w i t h o u t fences nor bedrooms w i t h o u t w i n d o w

another, we go freely up the territorial hierarchy

territorial depth tend to classify space as pri-

curtains may a f f o r d m u c h privacy But both

and then d o w n again somewhere else, where

vate, scmiprivatc,

spaces are clearly private, relative to street and

semipublic,

and public. I n fact,

whether a given territorial space is private or

alley.

we may be permitted to enter. I n visiting a

neighbor, one typically steps out the door, up
into c o m m o n public space, then d o w n again

public depends entirely on one's perspective:

the same space is simultaneously

unre-

through the neighbor's gate, as one is admitted

private to

those not yet admitted and pubhc to those f r o m

Territorial and Form Hierarchies as

included territories, who are free to enter at all

Control Hierarchies

back into a more deeply embedded territorial

level.
There are good reasons, therefore, w h y

times.'*
By observing a certain disciphne i n termi-

Like the Order o f Form, the Order o f Place is a

nology we can avoid misunderstanding. Ter

control hierarchy I n f o r m hierarchies, we con-

ritory refers to a u n i t o f spatial control. Private

t r o l physical parts and configurations o f parts.

and public

refer to space, but not to territory.

I n territorial hierarchies o f inclusion, we con-

W i t h i n t e r r i t o r y we find two kinds o f space: pri-

trol space. I n both hierarchies, agents control-

landlocked countries are disadvantaged. They

lack access to the highest level o f territory: to
the public space o f the open seas and their unrestricted skies, and to all o f the realms that
those seas and skies touch.

7.5

Territorial deptiiThe territorial depth of A. as

shown In figure 7.4. Three crossings are needed to move

from outside A to the deepest included territory

Territory Precludes H o r i z o n t a l

abutting neighbor's backyard t h r o u g h a side

Interaction

gate-is an i n f o r m a l and i n t i m a t e exception.

I n short, when the higher-level configu-

In abstract diagrammatic representation, "ver-

ration does not separate live configurations o n

tical" relationships

the lower level, territorial structure w i l l . The

create hierarchy.

zontal" relationships

i n no way

"Hori-

determine

separation has no technical or f u n c t i o n a l ratio-

f o r m a l structure. But i n a real w o r l d composed

nale. I t is a matter o f control, Territorial order

o f physical parts, the horizontal is not so easily

maintains vertical organization where physical

discounted. Neighboring territories abut, and

order leaves o f f

one's neighbor is frequently closer t h a n the

public street. We have already observed that
dominance and dependency are unpredictable

Large-Scale Territorial Boundaries

and inherently unstable i n horizontal interaction among configurations (see chapter 1.5).

b u i l t environment that horizontal territorial

for instance, is estabhshed by confinement.

relationships become unavoidable. Unlike the

Thus, city blocks segregate groups o f houses;

vertical gate connecting private and public

rooms f o r m e d by p a r t i t i o n i n g segregate con-

space, gates between nations are strictly sym-

o f f u r n i t u r e . But some same-level

metrical. Goods flow over borders i n both direc-

configurations inevitably find themselves shar-

tions, regulated by customs officers. I n contrast

figurations

Horizontal

Relations

Are Avoided

It is oniy at a scale far above the perceptible

Dominance among f o r m s o f enclosure,

Buildings share available space

to vertical gates, under the control o f a single

w i t h i n the city block. Likewise, w i t h i n a r o o m

agent who determines what comes i n , hori-

shared among co-workers, several live configu-

zontal gates open only w h e n parties on both

rations o f f u r n i t u r e may be f o u n d . W h e n con-

sides agree. Otherwise the boundary remains

figurations on the same level relate horizontally

closed.

ing

space.

the rules o f territory take over, c o n t i n u i n g sepa-

Horizontal

territorial

traffic

between

ration by means o f boundaries. H o r i z o n t a l ter-

countries spawns elaborate procedures o f ex-

ritorial boundaries may be invisible, but they

change and m u t u a l control, as well as frequent

nonetheless f o r m an impenetrable membrane,

disputes. Nations may force or i n t i m i d a t e others to open gates: Finland, d u r i n g the cold war,

preventing configurations f r o m interacting,

O f t e n there exists no physical constraint

was i n no position to refuse entry to Soviet

of gravity enclosure, or supply network to pre-

goods. But usually gates open by m u t u a l con-

ter-

sent European countries are currently involved

ritories. Yet instances where gates connect two

i n a prolonged process o f permanently open-

clude

horizontal

connection

between

territories horizontally or where configurations

ing up borders while m a i n t a i n i n g territorial

on d i f f e r e n t sides of a territorial

autonomy.

boundary

interact directly are few. A b u t t i n g houses along

But to r e t u r n to the experiential scale o f

the street frequently t u r n bUnd walls toward

place, far removed f r o m the scale o f nations:

one another. I n suburbs, trees, shrubs, lawns,

built f o r m reinforces e q u i l i b r i u m where people

and other outdoor elements are confined w i t h i n

settie together. A t the scale o f h u m a n inhabita-

invisible setback lines. Crossing a horizontal

tion, territory serves to segregate what physical

b o u n d a r y f o r example, directly entering an

f o r m leaves open.