Space... What's in a word?

Non-places focus on efficiency: the shortest route on a highway, the clear organization of a supermarket or the navigation of the masses through an international airport.  These non-places rely on a contractual relation to its users, a system of operating that involves anonymity in complying to a system of exits, aisles, flight numbers and minimal (if any) face to face communication.  

These non-places rely on language.

Marc Auge illustrates places becoming language through towns becoming words on highway signs, read a mile away from town center as you pass by going 70mph.  Distance needs text, yet language is enabling distance.  

To take this distance one step further, look at the international language of symbols.  International airports rely on small icons to efficiently direct all passengers, brand logos communicate in a similar referential way.  Even cities such as New York City are recognized in the symbol of a skyline, communicating the idea of place while distancing from actual place and perpetuating the aesthetic of distance.

 

Barajas Airport signage

‘The collective bastardization of english is out most impressive achievement” -Rem Koolhaas

We as designers rely on language and symbols to communicate architecture.  The word “space”  for example is used all the time.  Yet it is a word of anonymity that among several meanings can refer to the distance between objects. (oh the irony) We designate rooms as “flex-space” or a green square on a site plan as “greenspace.”  What does that mean? How does that abstract terminology translate into something that creates a relational dynamic?  We use a similar language of symbols and icons to communicate use, typology and ideas, to name a few.  What are the implications of understanding architecture this way?

The next step may be studying how places or non-places that treat people as commodities, moving and directing to meet a goal or destination, distances the human.  

From a distance (Steven Siegel 1980 NY)