ABSTRACT
Following our critique of homogenisation and segregation, this chapter synthesises the impact of threshold spaces in the city. It criticises the idea of Autonomous Architecture, that is, the physical autonomy of architecture, as it disables public space. It criticises also the idea of Semi-private Complex architecture, that has no public space despite being accessible to the public.
Although Threshold Architecture appears ambiguous as it displays a complex array of semi-private spaces, public space prevails. The “relational autonomy” of threshold spaces enhances both human relations (public space) and the autonomy of a community (people using the building). An array of threshold spaces in the city can have a political impact empowering communities on the long term and fostering democratic life.
Design of thresholds requires spatial openness and functional openness. Thresholds have an architectural identity that is defined through similarities and differences to public interiors and open-air public space. The link between threshold design and social context relies on standard site-specific architectural methodologies. Some design tools help manage information about the dialectics of the social context. Diagramming is a tool that can create a sketch-like representation of dialectics as “fields of forces.” Computational design is another tool considered.
