Interaction

Photo by Khamkéo Vilaysing on Unsplash

The SARS-CoV-2 virus required us to accept dramatic and sudden changes in societal behavior, most notably social distancing. While self-isolation or quarantining is necessary to minimize viral transmission, social distancing amplifies the risk of adverse emotional and psychological effects. Humans are social beings, so the closure or reduced access to areas of interaction between people has increased loneliness, anxiety, stress, fear, and boredom. Psychological harm has been the toxic corollary of our COVID-19 existence.

The following excerpt from the late Bill Kleinsasser’s self-published textbook SYNTHESIS stressed his belief in the importance of built environments supportive of human interaction. In Bill’s mind, such places were nothing less than a mental health imperative. He deemed the considerations associated with designing spaces supportive of gracious, inclusive, and life-affirming interactions between people to be essential to the making of good architecture. Fundamentally, he believed it was the architect’s duty to prioritize how the designed environment accommodates healthful societal interactions. This responsibility has never been so evident as it is now.

Interaction

It is possible and desirable to make conditions and supports in the built environment that help people achieve (and continue to achieve) significant interactions with one another. 

This frame of reference concerns the development of those places where people already collect because of activity patterns or necessity. Slight additions or adjustments often make such places supportive of important interaction. At the same time, it is recognized that built conditions in any environment may have little or nothing to do with interaction among people.

Interaction with other human beings (if it is significant, rational, and constructive) is apparently necessary if one is to establish a complete self-image which is in accord with reality. An individual cannot always, through introspection, see what and who he really is.

Conditions of modern life seem to reduce seriously the number of opportunities for meaningful interaction among people. Many sociologists and anthropologists have expressed great concern about the destruction caused by modern life to “primary groups,” which were previously the main framework for human associations and cooperation, and to the quality of interactions among people. Others warn about the workings of our natural defense mechanisms which tend to perpetuate incomplete and untrue views of self and life. 

The study of interaction clearly must involve the study of various kinds of interaction, various needs that are manifest when interaction does not happen, variables that particularize the meaning of interaction in any situation, groups, and group dynamics, etc. 

There are many forms of human interaction. We commonly are not discerning enough (specific enough) when we use the term, and as usual our lack of precision leads to design trouble—at least, it doesn’t help us in the generation of design responses. Consequently, our good intentions do not result in better environmental conditions. Without pretenses about completeness, some kinds of human interaction are as follows:

• Being with others . . . in the presence of others.
• Sharing the same space.
• Sharing the same routine.
• Doing something with others over an extended period of time—a hard job or an ordeal—like the army, school, community projects.
• Doing more casual things with others . . . infrequently.
• Daily meeting . . . casual exchange.
• Being exposed to new ideas, styles, attitudes, etc.
• Receiving messages that reveal the presence of people.
• Expression of self.
• Sharing experience of an event of any kind, whether in daily life, in literature, in poetry, music, etc. especially hard times or adversity.
• Forthright, “hair down,” frank, relaxed, non-role-playing times . . . where normal barriers are removed.
• Physical touching.
• Just talking to someone . . . telling someone something . . . teaching someone something.
• Finding one’s own inner, infrequently known self.
• Overseeing, overhearing, watching . . . vicarious contact . . . watching people play, watching events . . . being in touch.

Some forms of interaction cause the need to withdraw or retreat, to break off from interaction. This happens when there are too many people, or when it becomes too hot or too hard to breathe, or too crowded . . . when interaction is relentless and out of control, or when it is too sudden or too prolonged.

Some forms of interaction lead to relaxed relationships: openness, long-lasting friendship, and love.

Some forms of interaction lead to comfortable relationships: temporary ones, not deep, but significant and positive.

It is not possible to always predict the consequences of the various forms of interaction. People’s circumstances, states of mind, and dependencies all vary, and the physical environment doesn’t always matter. 

Nevertheless, we can establish a variety of conditions to encourage interaction and hope for the best. The physical environment around us often lacks these conditions. It often discourages constructive interaction among people and sometimes prevents it. 

Some conditions that can be established in response are:

1. The development of sunny spots, shady spots, edges, activity nodes, entries, stairs, heavily used spaces . . . so that people are invited to gather there . . . simply taking advantage of an already existing situation.
2. Establishing places that are events, or that cause or invite events—open places—that are not overly designated for use.
3. Overlapping and /or reinforcing uses.
4. Structure of organizing systems that break down normal barriers.
5. Places that push people together . . . or places that collect people.
6. Places that can be shared by small groups (because large groups diffuse possession) . . . size, position, and visual contact are crucial.
7. Places that allow those who live there to communicate about themselves . . . their ideas, feelings, and their care and concern about how their place was/is made.
8. Places that are in touch with people’s sounds, words, inflections, expressions, gestures . . . connected intimately.

Summary:

Observation of places in which people interact (interact in a variety of ways) suggests that designers should consider the following actions in the design of places that offer opportunities for interaction:

• Making places that push people together (judiciously).
• Developing sunny and shady places (people like to be there).
• Making places that allow people to do things together.
• Developing spatial invitations to pause, linger, stay.
• Developing groups of needed facilities.
• Making places that allow people to show or express themselves (allowing a choice of different degrees of making themselves accessible).
• Developing activity nodes where people will be anyway (entries, stairways, intersections, heavily used places) so they are invited to stay.
• Developing edge, in-between, and leftover spaces (they usually have potential for spontaneous use inasmuch as they usually don’t’ belong to anyone, any group, or any purpose) . . . “open” spaces.
• Establishing places that are events in themselves (interesting, important, engaging).
• Establishing laces that invite many events (“open” places that are neither over- or under-designated).
• Developing places of overlapping or reinforcing uses (one activity needs or supports another, thereby collecting more people to a group of places).
• Organizing or structuring places in ways that break down normal barriers to interaction.

WK / 1981