Keyes 1

Hannah Keyes
CHID Amsterdam: Visualizing the Invisible

On the Temporality of Multifunctional Spaces
There is currently much discourse on the importance of multi-functional spaces in
this age of premade, mono-functional spaces. While it is essential to develop multifunctional spaces, this paper will attempt to visualize the importance of both mono- and
multi-functional space. Tag lines like multi-function and mixed-use are often misused
due to a lack of complete understanding of their meanings. It is essential to visualize the
difference between and the inherent values of both types of spaces.
Distinct sets of codes instruct inhabitants on how to interact with a given space,
and these codes are virtually inescapable. A staircase is heavily coded to instruct a user to
walk up or down, cafs give a few more optionsdrink, eat, talk, study, observebut
there is still a limit to the ways inhabitants must act. These spaces are mono-functional,
but the illusion of choice often hides this mono-functionality and gives the guise of multifunctionality. Mono-functionality is a result of the,
proliferation of 'non-places'; the bland shopping malls, indistinguishable airports,
office blocks, gated communities, theme parks, old-worldly villages, and
managed and coifed "wilderness" areas that, functioning as signs rather than
places, immerse the user in a self-conscious form of ritual bearing little relation to
any actual time or location (Fahmi).
Mono-functionality is not, however, inherently problematic. Mono-functional spaces
have distinct sets of codes in place to dictate human interaction with space. It would be
exhausting to approach each new space with complete uncertainty as to how it should

Keyes 2
function. Spatial codes are a visual language, buildings are no longer mass and weight,
stone and iron, [they are] an array of sentences spelling out the consciousness of a city,
what a city means when we enter it and use its services, consume its goods."
The systematic functional theory of spatial semiotics lists six communication
modes; visual images, movement, speech/music/sound, architecture/three-dimensional
space, filmic texts, and hypermedia texts (Antos 356). Elements of these six modes can
be found in most spaces and typically the modes work in harmony to create a widely
recognized message. This can be seen in airports; visual images and text clearly denote
that certain areas have very specific uses, audio directs people through the building to the
designated space, even the flow of people through the airport facilitates more flow in the
same direction (ex. the stream of people moving towards baggage claim). The airport is
an example of positive mono-functionality; a multi-functional airport would likely be
unable to fulfill the intended function as a well-ordered transportation hub.
Clearly there is a place for mono-functionality, but the problem at hand is monofunctional spaces that are accepted as multi-functional. Amsterdam is home to several
barbershop-cafs. These businesses surely intended to create interesting sites whose
multi-functionality would attract more business. While it is quite possible that when these
shops first opened the spatial codes were skewed enough to confuse visitors and to allow
for a range of types of interaction, it is more likely that these recombinant spaces simply
maintained the presupposed codes and the space advertised as multi-functional was
mono-functional all along.
Language is fluid but somewhat slow to change, it is not beyond reason to claim
that the language of space follows a similar pattern. Multi-functional spaces can be seen

Keyes 3
as the spatial version of slang that has yet to be accepted into the Oxford English
Dictionary. Visualizing the constant transformation of multi-function spaces into monofunctional makes clear the temporality of multi-functionality and allows for a better
understanding of how to actually achieve it. Foucault states that, perhaps our life is still
governed by a certain number of oppositions that remain inviolable, that our institutions
and practices have not yet dared to break down (Foucault 2). It is, perhaps, in the
breaking down of these oppositions that multi-functional spaces are created.
The multi-functional space is a kind of heterotopia. The heterotopia is capable of
juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites that are in themselves
incompatible (6). Because the multi-functional space is temporary, any static space will
lose its multi-functionality, its continued existence is reliant on the creativity and
innovation of the people who will inhabit it. Consider, for example, that the first
Modernist homes of the late 1940s, with full length glass sliding doors and open plan
living areas, provoked strong feelings of insecurity, but today would be considered
neither radical nor challenging (Antos 368). When first built these homes made the
inhabitants uncomfortable because the typical architectural signifiers were missing, but
eventually those inhabitants learned the new architectural language and the freedom of
uncertainty was given up in exchange for clearly understood new signifiers and designed
interactions. These multi-functional spaces exist as other, as heterotopias, only while
they remain uncertain; their otherness dissipates as the new signifier language is learned.
Foucault claims that, We live inside a set of relations that delineates sites which
are irreducible to one another and absolutely not superimposable on one another

Keyes 4
(Foucault 3). These sites that are irreducible to one another are mono-functional sites,
irreducible to one another due to the constant presence and regulative power of spatial
semiotics. The mono-functional space has a distinct set of codes that dictate how one is to
interact with or use the space. Studies in spatial semiotics help to visualize this invisible
regulative power that the built environment holds by exposing elements of space that
have become coded.
A true multi-functional space should not have clear codes that dictate how it
should be used or how people should react to the space. Such a space may not actually
exist, but some spacessuch as Oude Kerkdo come close to this true multifunctionality. Oude Kerk is multi-functional in its history as well as its current use. The
site was initially a cemetery and Oude Kerk in a simpler form than we see today was built
on top of the cemetery in 1306. In the more than eight hundred years since it was built
Oude Kerk has acted as the center of a city that has changed from town, to center for
trade, to urban metropolis. The context of the site has changed due to the city around it,
but so has the use of the church. Oude Kerk was founded as Catholic but became a
Protestant church in 1578. The building has been an inspiration for artists over the
hundreds of years, but now acts as both tourist site and gallery for contemporary art.
It is the history of layered functions as well as the current multiplicity of functions
that marks Oude Kerk as both a multi-functional and a heterotopic site. Oude Kerk
currently functions as a major tourist destination spot, a spiritual space, a landmark with a
rich history, and for the time being as a gallery space for contemporary art. In my own
experience visiting Oude Kerk as a tourist seeing Amsterdams key sites I struggled with
the contrast between the history and spirituality of the space and the art that was on

Keyes 5
display. Art galleries try to draw the visitor to the art on display, to showcase it. In Oude
Kerk the art is in competition with the magnificent space, but also relies on the space for
context.
The key elements that the art on display in Oude Kerk provided in order to make
it a heterotopic, multi-functional space were opposing spatial codes. Of the six modes of
communication, those that most upset the preexisting spatial codes of the church were
visual images, movement, and hypermedia. The visual images in what had become a
protestant church were mostly minimal, some ornate carvings and some ceiling paintings
but iconoclasm removed most religious imagery from the church. The contemporary art
in the space became ostentatious in comparison to the subtle visual images provided by
the church alone. Because the contemporary visuals were so obvious they caused the
movement within the space to change. Where without the art visitors may have walked
to the center, to an alter, etc. the addition of art caused people typically to move from one
piece to the next in the circle around the edges of the church before finally reaching the
pews in the center.
The introduction of hypermedia to the space with the upload your face to Jesus
piece seemed to transition the space most extremely to multi-functional. This
incorporates new technology within the old church, but also creates representations of
Christ that would have been blasphemous in the functioning Protestant church. In a
typical gallery setting this piece would likely find many willing participants and would
create conversations that could be critical or not about religion. Regardless, in the church
setting many people are extremely uncomfortable interacting with this piece, whether that

Keyes 6
be uploading their own picture or seeing another face on the blank face of the large
Styrofoam Jesus.
I participate in the creation of mono-functional spaces and surely have been guilty
of reading mono-functional spaces as multi-functional from time to time. I have, at times,
existed in heterotopias. Although I did not attend boarding school, I did to all-girls school
for seven years from sixth grade until I graduate high school. This schooling type is
other from both public school and from co-ed school. This did not seem to me a
heterotopia of crisis, but it was due to my age that I went to an all-girls school, it was a
time of growth and this heterotopia allowed my growth to happen in a space that was
other from the norm. Spending time in Oude Kerk I have dwelled in this heterotopia,
lets say of multi-functionality. I recognized when I was in this space that there was a
history of different functions layered on this one location and I registered the real multifunctionality in that I felt uncomfortable with the space that had conflicting spatial codes.
My visual focuses on Oude Kerk as a multi-functional space, but works to
elucidate spatial codes that typically lead to mono-functionality. The base layer of my
visual is the cemetery on which Oude Kerk is built and the second layer is the church as it
stands today. My visual is interactive just as a space like Oude Kerk is interactive. The
user can choose which layer to put on the church and thus interact with the church in the
context they choose. Some layers confuse the space, similarly to how the art gallery does
currently, but in doing so make the space multi-functional. Other layers explicitly guide
the user through the space; clearly marked signs explain how the space is to be used.
This visual is an attempt to force the user to think about the real implications of
multi-functionality versus mono-functionality. The mono-functional space that they can

Keyes 7
choose would limit possible ways of interacting with the space, but also connect more to
the history and spirituality of the space. The multi-functional options create oppositions
that we regard as simple givens: for example between private space and public space,
between family space and social space, between cultural space and useful space, between
the space of leisure and that of work. All these are still nurtured by the hidden presence of
the sacred (2).











Works Cited:
Antos, Gerd, Eija Ventola, and Tilo Weber. "13: Feeling Space: Interpersonal
Communication and Spatial Semiotics." Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 2008. 355-93. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
Fahmi, Wael Salah. "The Urban Incubator: (De)constructive (re)presentation of

Keyes 8
Heterotopian Spatiality and Virtual Image(ries)." First Monday (2007). First
Monday. Web. 19 Aug. 2014.
Foucault, Michel. "Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias." Architecture
/Mouvement/ Continuit (1984). MIT. Web. 19 Aug. 2014.
Shane, David G. "Heterotopias and Urban Design." Writing Urbanism: A Design Reader.
London: Routledge, 2008. 237-43. Print.
Urhahn Urban Design Firm, The Spontaneous City. Amsterdam: BIS, 2010. Print.