Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
179 views2 pages

Sociofugal Vs Sociopetal Space: The Hidden Dimension

Sociofugal vs Sociopetal Space describes two patterns of space identified by Humphrey Osmond - sociofugal space tends to separate people and suppress interaction, while sociopetal space brings people together and encourages interaction. Many researchers since Osmond have studied these patterns. Examples given include airport lounges being sociofugal while Washington Square Park is sociopetal due to its interconnected rings and spirals. Understanding sociofugal and sociopetal patterns is important for service designers to craft engaging experiences, as the physical environment can influence human interaction.

Uploaded by

Rodelyn Binasahan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
179 views2 pages

Sociofugal Vs Sociopetal Space: The Hidden Dimension

Sociofugal vs Sociopetal Space describes two patterns of space identified by Humphrey Osmond - sociofugal space tends to separate people and suppress interaction, while sociopetal space brings people together and encourages interaction. Many researchers since Osmond have studied these patterns. Examples given include airport lounges being sociofugal while Washington Square Park is sociopetal due to its interconnected rings and spirals. Understanding sociofugal and sociopetal patterns is important for service designers to craft engaging experiences, as the physical environment can influence human interaction.

Uploaded by

Rodelyn Binasahan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Sociofugal vs Sociopetal Space

February 9, 2008 in insights, patterns

In 1957 a doctor named Humphrey Osmond began observing the


effects of environmental change on the interactions of patients in a
mental hospital in Saskatchewan. From that research he eventually
identified two major systems for patterning space. Sociofugal space
(gridlike) tends to keep people apart and suppress communication
while sociopetal space (radial) does just the opposite. It brings people
together and stimulates interaction as routes merge and overlap.
This probably won’t come as a shock for architects, but for service
designers it’s valuable information to add to our understanding of
human interaction.
Many other researchers followed in Osmond’s footsteps, developing a
body of work known as “proxemics” to describe the cultural
distinctions between intimate, personal, social and public space. The
Hidden Dimension by Edward T. Hall is a classic reference on the
spatial aspects of human interaction. A typical pattern might explain
how the arrangement of furniture in a room discourages or encourages
conversation or interaction. Airport lounges for example are designed
to isolate people. So are most libraries, supermarkets and classrooms.
Sociopetal and sociofugal patterns work on multiple
scales. Washington Square Park in New York City is a fantastic
example of sociopetal space. The book Drawing a Circle in the
Squarecatalogs the series of interconnected rings, spirals, and funnels
that bring people together throughout the park and contribute to its
popularity as a gathering place.
On a still-larger scale, Spiro Kostof explores the isolating nature of
grids in The City Shaped and compares the urban pattern of New York
to radial cities such as Washington DC or Paris and organic cities such
as Pittsburgh or London.
Whenever I encounter a space that seems particularly sociofugal or
sociopetal I step back and try to articulate my impressions. For
instance, a design firm here in San Francisco sometimes hosts events
in an upstairs space. The last time I was there, I was struck by the
alienating nature of the environment:
Something about the din of voices against the high ceiling of the concrete room is disquieting. There’s
an undifferentiated mass of people. Visitors come in and are immediately thrust into the room itself.
No buffer. Do the stairs count? No, you enter directly into an overwhelming space. Acoustics, acoustics,
acoustics. This room sounds awful. Uninviting. Something about it feels like an airport.

I’ve only worked in one office that I’d classify as exceptionally


sociopetal, but for the two years I worked there the environment was
an incredibly important factor for collaboration. We had a small space,
located in the basement of a larger agency. Low ceilings, curved walls,
no doors. I have no doubt that it brought us together as a team. On
the other hand, I’ve also worked in environments that were powerfully
sociofugal. I’m convinced that offices with doors are a terrible barrier
against interaction. My office connected with other offices along a
single hallway in a huge ring around the periphery of the building. It
was like walking around a space station; incredibly isolating.
Compare that to Frank Gehry’s thoughts on designing an academic
building for MIT in Managing as Designing. He describes how
architecture plays a role in shaping interaction:
They will have a building for seven departments that need to talk with each other. The reclusive ones
among them will find ways of interacting and the building will function to facilitate that interaction.
It’s simple. Just putting the cafeteria in the middle and putting their breakout spaces in view of the
cafeteria means they can see when other professors are going to lunch and say, “Oh God, I’d like to
talk to that guy. He’s going to lunch, I’m going to go to lunch.” It’s that dumb, and I think it’s going to
work that simply.

Service designers don’t often work at the level of architecture or urban


planning, but understanding structure and flow within space is critical
for crafting engaging experiences. The sociofugal/sociopetal distinction
gives us an important tool for approaching the problem of situated
human interaction.

You might also like