Colleges of Cambridge: The Spatial Interaction between the Town and theGown

Dima SrouriUniversity College London, UK

srourid@hotmail.com

Abstract

This paper investigates the notion of campus community and its interaction with the bigcommunity, which is the society in which it exists. It examines the interaction betweenstudents and residents for a campus that is located in the city center from a spatial pointof view. The Campus chosen for this study is one of the oldest campuses that adopt thecollegiate system, the University of Cambridge campus. This system has been the subjectof so much debate for researchers in the field of higher education in general, and in campusplanning in particular. The study is carried out by constructing the spatial accessibilitymap for both students and residents, spotting areas of spatial overlap and examining theircharacteristics as well as their role in providing encounter. In doing this, the study triesto throw some light on university campus planning and to detect a theoretical model for auniversity campus from this particular case. This paper suggests that the collegiate systemhas an effect on students’ life and therefore their performance, and that the location ofcolleges plays an important role in this particular case.

1. Introduction

The University of Cambridge occupies a great deal of land in the heart of Cambridge,which is known to be a university town. The location of the university campus is criticalbecause of the physical closeness of ‘town’ and ‘gown’ and the fact that it involves dailyinteraction between students and residents. The type of community that the campushas and its relation to the whole community in the city raises an interesting questionwhether there is a spatial pattern in which they both interact. And if so, what are thecharacteristics of this pattern? Does this pattern draw the line between the universityand the city? Moreover, what theoretical model for a university campus can be thereforedetected form this particular case?

The methodology followed to answer the above questions is based upon a theoreticalframework that builds upon two major works. The first is Allen’s “Managing the Flowof Technology” (Allen, 1977), and the second is Granovetter’s “The strength of weakties” (Granovetter 1982). Building upon these two theories for this particular case entailstracing back the origins of the university of Cambridge campus and the establishmentof the collegiate system as well as analyzing the spatial structure using space syntaxmethodology by constructing the spatial accessibility map for both students and residents.Conclusions are drawn from the analysis by relating space syntax analysis to the abovetheories in an attempt to reveal the characteristics of the interaction pattern betweenstudents and residents and to detect a theoretical model for a university campus.

256 Dima Srouri

2. Theoretical framework

The main theoretical frame for this study is an investigation of campus community throughthe notion that social aspects can be derived from spatial aspects. It is suggested thatthere is an effect of campus design on the socialization of students and the effectivenesswith which the mission of higher education can be carried out. The focus of recent re-search has been on the transmission of knowledge and innovation in general. In studyingcommunication and innovation in engineering, Allen states that advances in knowledgedepend much more on interaction between people that are not part of the same field,than on communication within the same field (Allen, 1977). Allen suggests that the pat-terns of encounter generated by the movement of people through the public space networkmay be a key factor in the generation of innovation. Relating Allen’s observations to thisstudy suggests that while interaction between students occur naturally, interaction be-tween students and residents does not occur naturally, and therefore the pattern in whichthey both interact through open space might be held to generate this interaction. Onthe other hand, in studying social networks, Granovetter introduces “strong” and “weakties” between people in social networks (Granovetter, 1982). By strong ties, he refers tofriends that know each other, and by weak ties, he refers to acquaintances in the socialnetwork. He stresses the importance of weak ties as “bridges” that extend the individual’srealm of support system. Granovetter’s findings complement Allen’s work by signifyingthe role of space in generating strong and weak ties. Relating Granovetter’s argumentto this study suggests that as it is important to create solidarity among students, it isalso important to allow for the formation of weak ties between students and society. Thisargument might have interesting spatial implications for university campuses, since theyprovide the preliminary conditions for encounter.

The spatial model proposed by Hillier and Hanson (Hillier & Hanson, 1984) suggestssocial and spatial rules to understand the spatial structures. They introduce “long” and“short” models or high and low frequency encounters. Long models are models whereactivities are ritualistic, while short models are models where activities are practical.The short model suggested here represents the students’ daily activities, while the longmodel represents the interaction between students on campus and the surrounding urbancontext. Hillier and Hanson emphasize the importance of encounter in the realization ofweak ties that would promote interaction between the campus and the city. This studyuses Space Syntax methodology to investigate the extent to which spatial configurationcan be held to have an effect on the type of interaction between the university and the city.The hypothesis is that spatial configuration plays a key role in providing the conditionsin which this interaction can be realised. The following section investigates the historicalbackground of the university as well as the city, and the factors that have influenced themuntil they have developed the spatial layout of today.

3. The Evolution of Cambridge

Contrary to the common presumption that Cambridge is essentially a university town,from its early thirteenth century beginnings, the university had to find its place in analready thriving county and market town (Brooke, 1993). The origin of the collegiatesystem has been the subject of as much detailed academic research and debate as thatof the university itself. Physically, a college was intended to provide one set of buildingsin which Masters and scholars lived together. Ultimately, this system has become what is

Colleges of Cambridge: The Spatial Interaction betweenthe Town and the Gown 257

Figure 115: Land use map of Cambridge (drawn by the author)

called the traditional “Oxbridge” college structure (referring to Oxford and Cambridge).The pace of development for both the university and the town quickened and by the

sixteenth century, both the university and the town had broadly assumed the form knowntoday, and there was little alteration to it in spatial terms until the nineteenth century.The market was the key area of the town and its location has never changed althoughthere were changes in economic activities and their locations as well as the character ofsome buildings in the market area over the centuries (Brooke, 1993). The core area wasessentially confined within the central triangle of the main roads. The relationship betweenthe university and the town was symbiotic as the university brought considerable tradeand wealth to the town. The period up to 1950, Cambridge became a center of scientificallybased research industries (Brooke, 1993). The post 1950 expansion of the university andother educational centers, together with its housing and economic activities, seemed tocreate a certain symbiosis that has developed between the university and the local businesscommunity.

As the historical background showed the evolution of both the university and the city,a closer look at the current spatial layout and the specific land uses is needed to capturethe main functions of the spatial system in the city.

4. Building typology

The land use map for Cambridge reveals an inter-weaving of different types of land-holdings around the campus, with a concentration of retail and commercial uses in thecentral triangle in the city spreading linearly towards the north and south (figure 115). Themain examination of building types in Cambridge brings about the distinction betweencolleges and departments (figure 116). As it was mentioned earlier, colleges are wherestudents actually live. Students from different disciplines live in colleges, which are locatedon main streets. These streets have become the busy streets of the university and thecollective areas of students for developing communal activity.

258 Dima Srouri

Figure 116: Locations of colleges and departments in Cambridge (drawn by the author)

Colleges overlook the river on the other side creating what is called the Backs, anuninterrupted stretch of green space along the river. On the other hand, departmentsare in different locations, generating their own interconnected systems and their zonesof isolation. These are the areas of individual activity and movement. The layout of thecolleges suggests a specific accessibility pattern since colleges are essentially for students,and yet they attract residents as well as visitors to the town. An examination of spatialaccessibility is carried out next to inspect different patterns of interaction.

5. Spatial Accessibility

Basic accessibility analysis of functions for students as well as residents is examinedthrough determining what functions are accessible to students and what functions areaccessible to residents through different times of the day. Categories are basically dividedinto students and residents. As colleges are essentially for students, residents are not ex-pected to walk through colleges. However, since there are only few routes to cross to theother side of the river Cam, residents tend to walk through colleges to cross the river,or simply enjoy the scenes at the Backs. Tourists also walk through colleges, to view thearchitecture of the university buildings. The colleges’ layout is made out of central greenspace courtyards with restricted footpaths to all but fellows of the university, meaningthat the only access is provided through the walkways surrounding the central courts.

Spatial accessibility is represented by the “axial map” (Hillier, 1999b), which is themap of the longest and fewest lines that represent the street network. The “axial map” isdrawn according to the routes, or lines, that are accessible. In this case, the axial map isconstructed according to two scenarios:

• Spatial accessibility with access through colleges representing student accessibility

Colleges of Cambridge: The Spatial Interaction betweenthe Town and the Gown 259

• Spatial accessibility with no access through colleges representing non-student (orresident) accessibility

The global integration analysis with no access to colleges shows that the main integra-tors are the ring road around the city to the south east side, intersecting with the routegoing from Regents Street to Bridge Street. This route is the main shopping street in thecity center (figure 117). On the other hand, global integration with access through col-leges considerably increases integration values making the overall system more integrated,and draws the integration pattern to the west towards the colleges, creating a triangleof the main integrators in the center of Cambridge. Although access through colleges ispresumed, colleges still have a certain degree of segregation. Access through colleges alsocreates another main integrator, which is the ring road on the west side of the river thathas some departments and the main university library. The integration nucleus has themain shopping area in the centre surrounded by colleges on all sides with less concentrationof colleges on the east side.

The local integration pattern - or radius-3 integration which is integration only up tothree lines away from each line in every direction - with no access through colleges showsthe route following King’s Parade and Trinity Street, which is the main university street,to be the most integrated followed by the shopping street (Regent Street) then the mainring road (Figure 118). The local integration pattern also picks up some of the globallysegregated lines in residential areas. Local integration with access through colleges remainsalmost the same as the local integration presuming no access, and it also picks up someglobally segregated lines inside colleges.

Correlating global integration to local integration, which is called “synergy”, shows astrong relation between the two (figure 119). The results show better correlation consider-ing there is no access through colleges, since colleges are globally segregated - to providea certain degree of privacy - and locally more integrated. There seems to be a good corre-lation between the local and global integration, which means that there is a clear relationbetween the local and global structure.

Due to the historical development of the town, the main geometrical characters of theaxial map shows that Cambridge has a ‘deformed’ grid as opposed to an orthogonal or aradial one. By examining line length and the angle of intersection of the main integrators ofthe axial map, the main geometric aspects of the grid are revealed. The angle of incidenceof the main integrators is an obtuse angle - about 15 degrees of a direct 180 degreescontinuation. Obtuse angles are usually associated with longer lines and therefore theyhave long lines of sight. Relatively segregated lines in Cambridge lie on near right-angleconnections, within about 15 degrees of 90 degrees. These are usually associated withshorter lines that do not allow for long lines of sight providing for some degree of privacy.The visual integration analysis echoes the axial map integration in general (Figure 120).It also shows that the visually most integrated area is the area between Market Hill andKing’s college, which lies in the centre of the main triangle.

Integration values are correlated with gate counts to examine the relationship betweenmovement and integration of the main streets. This correlation is categorized by studentsand residents, to detect in which streets students’ movement occurs and in which streetsresidents’ movement occurs through different times of the day. The data show that thereseems to be a reasonably strong correlation between movement and integration throughoutdifferent times of the day, except for rush hours, which witness relatively more movementof both students and residents (figure 121). The correlation shows that students’ movement

260 Dima Srouri

Figure 117: Global integration map with and with no access through colleges (drawn bythe author)

Colleges of Cambridge: The Spatial Interaction betweenthe Town and the Gown 261

Figure 118: Local integration map with and with no access through colleges (drawn bythe author)

262 Dima Srouri

Figure 119: Synergy with and with no access through colleges (produced by the author)

takes place at certain streets during certain times of the day, and the same holds true forresidents. Students’ movement is generally clustered in the route following TrumpingdonStreet to St. John’s Streets with more movement during the lunch and evening rush hours.On the other hand, residents’ movement takes place in the east-west direction inside thetriangle where Market Hill and the main shopping areas are located, with less variationduring different times of the day except at evening rush hour, which witnesses moremovement.

It can be suggested that most of the students’ movement comes from the west side,and eventually meets residents’ movement coming from the east side. The encounter be-tween students and residents takes place within the central triangle and spreads on bothsides. This follows on the line of argument suggested that town centers can be defined ascomplexes of interdependent facilities, so that if you come to use one, it is easy to useothers, and interaccessibility provides for this (Hillier, 1999a). Hillier suggests that thismix of use is part of a process called the ‘movement economy’ in which the layout ofspace first generates movement, then movement-seeking land uses migrate to movementrich lines, producing multiplier effects on movement, which then attract more retail andother services. This eventually creates the urban buzz through the mix of uses within thecity grid (Hillier, 1996a). The central triangle creates an area that provides for an ease ofencounter between students and residents within a mix of uses.

The above observations might lead to a better understanding of university campusesin general and not only this particular case, through the investigation of a theoreticalmodel for a university campus. Using the previous investigations as well as some othertheoretical models proposed by other theorists in this field might lead to that.

Colleges of Cambridge: The Spatial Interaction betweenthe Town and the Gown 263

Figure 120: The visual integration analysis of Cambridge (drawn by the author usingDepthmap)

264 Dima Srouri

Figure 121: The correlation between integration and movement during different timesthroughout the day (produced by the author)

Colleges of Cambridge: The Spatial Interaction betweenthe Town and the Gown 265

Figure 122: Theoretical graph with and with no access through colleges (drawn by theauthor)

6. A theoretical model

Spatial accessibility was previously represented as a matrix of the longest and fewest lines,or the “axial map”. It is suggested that translating the line matrix into a graph mightcapture the logic of the system (Hillier, 1999b). Measures from graphs can express the con-nectivity of communication networks and they are used to describe the complexity andintensity of the use of space. Accessibility through streets is investigated through landuse to detect what functions are accessible to students and what functions are accessibleto residents. A graph is plotted accordingly from the point of view of functionality. Asthe axial map presumes two scenarios of accessibility, this graph will assume the samescenarios as well (figure 122). The graph with access through colleges follows the theoryof partitioning (Hillier, 1996b), which suggests that increasing connectivity in the systemminimizes depth gain and therefore makes the system more integrated. Further investiga-tion of some other models for a university campus proposed by theorists, such as LeslieMartin (Martin, 1972) might throw some light on the theoretical model suggested.

Sir Leslie Martin urges maximum contact between educational establishments andother community facilities, and finds in this a possible solution to the problem of con-flicting uses of land. He suggests the concept of an educational building as a node ofactivity within a total community, which is dependent on the knowledge of how edu-cational buildings of all kinds develop and change as related parts of a developing andchanging community pattern (Martin, 1972). The developing of an educational mix notonly within the institutions themselves but also with the urban area in which they arelocated is proposed. Within that mix, space itself will become increasingly interchange-able between uses. For example, the university theatre and the college of music can offereducational opportunities for the general public. All these things are an indication of therich diversity of interests and interactions when the educational pattern is moved outside

266 Dima Srouri

the confines of its institutionalized limits. His pattern of “education without walls” ceasesto be a series of specialized buildings within a campus (Martin, 1968). It becomes a clus-tering of a much wider range of buildings in an area of a city held together by a networkof linkages, extending to the city itself. Martin suggests that the problem of residentialaccommodation for the total student population can never be regarded as something sep-arable from the housing problem of a city itself. The campus will not be deserted afterthe end of the day’s teaching by bringing of student housing on to the central site toinfuse some life into the university at night. This aims at the establishment of some linksbetween the total integral pattern and its extensions outwards into residence within thecity itself. Educational buildings will increasingly cease to be isolated and specialized ob-jects. The outside pressure of their growing relationship to their urban setting will bringthem more strongly into line with the overall texture of the city. The focus is on systemsof interaction between buildings rather than only on buildings treated separately as spe-cialized objects. For it is only around systems and frameworks that changing activitiescan organize themselves. This suggestion is seen to be analogous to space syntax theorieswhich might supply a framework around which campus planning decisions can be taken.

6. Conclusions

The Analysis shows that global integration increases presuming access through colleges.Global integration with access through colleges draws the integration pattern towardscolleges, creating a triangle of the main integrators in the center of Cambridge. Collegesat Cambridge seem to promote the integration of students’ social life within the citycentre. On the other hand, residents have access through colleges to cross the River Cam,enjoy the scene at the Backs or punt along the river, which integrates residents into thestudents’ activities. The River Cam plays a particular role in this case, which is to attractactivities of both students and residents due to the location of the campus along the river.

As the local integration pattern remains almost the same with both scenarios, it issuggested that local integration seems to predict intra-campus relations, while global inte-gration seems to predict inter-campus interactions. Therefore, local integration representsstudent-student interaction as well as resident-resident interaction, while global integra-tion represents student-resident interaction. It seems that local integration generates localgroup identity as well as some global segregation. On the other hand, spatially restrictednetworks between the university and the city seem to depend on global integration (seeGreene & Penn, 1997). It seems that strong ties are generated by local integration, whileweak ties are generated by global integration and that weak ties are created only whenstrong ties are previously established. Strong ties require space to be realized and thereforethe spatial configuration is held to generate both strong and weak ties. The streets andcollective areas of the university become potentially an extension of the framework of thecity itself.

Global and local integration show that colleges maintain a certain degree of segregationand at the same time they lie on well-integrated streets. The configuration of collegesand how they act as a facade to the campus where accessibility for residents is partiallyrestricted seems to draw a borderline between the university and the city. It seems thathierarchy in spatial configuration and not physical boundaries is what creates a borderlinebetween the university and the city. It is suggested by Hillier (Hillier, 1996a) that goodurban space has segregated lines, but they are close to integrated lines, so that there is a

Colleges of Cambridge: The Spatial Interaction betweenthe Town and the Gown 267

good mix of integrated and segregated lines locally. Colleges at Cambridge seem to act asa residential complex within the city, and therefore the campus becomes a small societywithin the big Cambridge society and the way they both interact, to integrate socialactivity into the city within certain restrictions, seems to be essential for their prosperity.

Finally, it is suggested that educational buildings should be seen increasingly as partof the strategy of urban development, moving towards the creation of a new urban envi-ronment in which buildings and the spaces between them are part of the same system.Educational buildings should not be isolated from the rest of the city; they are inter-related parts of one single system. The principles that apply to cities equally apply tocampuses.

Literature

Allen T., (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology, Cambridge, MIT Press.Brooke N. L., (1993) A History of the University of Cambridge, Vol. 1-4, Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.Granovetter, M., (1982) The strength of weak ties, Social Structure and Network

Analysis, P.V. Marsden and N. Lin (Eds.), Beverly Hills, Sage Publications.Greene M. and Penn A., (1997) Socio-spatial analysis of four university campuses,

proceedings of the 1st International Space Syntax Symposium, London.Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press.Hillier, B. (1996a) Cities as movement economies, Urban Design International, Vol. 1,

p. 49-60.Hillier, B. (1996b) Space is the Machine, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Hillier, B. (1999a) Centrality as a process: accounting for attraction inequalities in

deformed grids, Urban Design International, 4(3&4), p. 107-127.Hillier, B. (1999b) The hidden geometry of the deformed grids: or, why space syn-

tax works, when it looks as though it shouldn’t, in: Environment and Planning B:planning and Design, Vol. 26, p. 169-191.

Martin, L. and March, L. (1972) Urban Space and Structures, in: Cambridge Urbanand Architectural Studies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Martin, L. (1968) Education without walls, RIBA Journal, August 1968, p. 356-361.