The Australian National University’s Research School of Social Sciences, where I am presently ensconced, is a great place. It has amiable institutions such as Morning and Afternoon Tea, for instance, which make it possible to pass the entire day moving from one sort of break to another. It also has lots of interesting people in it. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to find any of them because they are all located in the Coombs Building. On the other hand, you may bump into them while you are looking for your office again.
The building’s layout is a marvel of logic and clarity, provided you are looking at it from the outside and are in a helicopter. Like a gigantic carbon molecule, it is composed of three, three-storey hexagonal blocks each of which shares a side with one of the others. One (soon to be two) of the hexagons has a stub protruding from it that appears to be the bottom side of a fourth hexagon but of course is not.
Once inside the building, finding your way around is simplicity itself. Rooms are numbered according to an elementary system whereby the first digit denotes the block, the second the level and the third the room itself. You will of course not be tempted to think there are three blocks (on an obviously absurd analogy to the three hexagons) but rather will intuit straight away that there are seven. Blocks are numbered beginning with the main entrance corridor at the bottom of the middle hexagon (which offers the shortest route between the left and right hexagons) and ascend from 1-7 in half-hexagon sized chunks proceeding in a clockwise fashion along the three blocks, sorry I mean units, except for block six which is the stub to the rightmost unit mentioned earlier.
To aid navigation across the floors there are staircases on every third (or sometimes fourth) turn. Bear in mind that when you take a corner you are making a 60-degree rather than a 90-degree turn. Due to the slightly sloping nature of the site, the upper floors in two of the hexagons do not line up vertically with the third, so occasional half-staircases are necessary to facilitate the transistion from one hexagon to the next.
Seminar rooms in the building are helpfully labelled A to F. Some of them also have proper names, such as the Nadel Room.1
The information booth (if you can find it) is staffed by helpful people who will give you directions and even a map of the building. All the same, I may soon invest in a GPS unit of some sort, and a copy of A Pattern Language, which Chris has recommended before. The book offers a set of basic building patterns that make for livable and navigable spaces, and a set of rules for distinguishing patterns that work from ones that just look good on the drawing board. I wonder if the “three interlocking hexagons” pattern is in there somewhere.
Any other contenders out there for least-easily navigable building in the world? More precisely, buildings which look at first glance like they ought to be navigable, but turn out to be impossible?
1I believe this room is named for the anthropologist SF Nadel, whose analysis of role structures in his Theory of Social Structure inspired some of the pioneers of modern structural social theory. Nadel was amongst the first to note that an objective picture of a society’s role structure need not map directly onto the picture of that structure carried around in the heads of the people who constitute the society, and that the two will affect each other in complex ways. This seems appropriate.
I found much of the University of Essex similar to this. You might ask Bob Goodin who moved to ANU from there whether the move was to a more or less navigable space.
I spent many years wandering the corridors of the Coombs, and even alluded to it in song form once.
The Humanities building of the University of Wisconsin-Madison is a contender, due in part to the fact that one of its mandates was to be a bastion for the National Guard in case the students rioted again. Gotta love ’60s-paranoid architecture :)
I am pretty sure it is not possible to arrange three hexagons such that each of them shares precisely one side with each of the others. But I am usually terrible at these kind of puzzles, so maybe someone else can suggest the correct arrangement.
My vote is the Pentagon. It’s nicely divided into floors, concentric rings (A-E), and sectors(1-10 if memory serves), so in theory the room number (eg 2D0816)tells you exactly where the room you want to find is. Sounds good, but once you’re inside it’s not so simple.
First, every hallway looks nearly identical—there are no cues about which direction you’re facing. It’s also laid out with axial and circumferential hallways, which is not the way most peoples minds work, so it’s easy to get turned around. And lastly, there are many places where the hallways are sealed off by large offices, so even if you get on the right track to where you want to go, often that track will end and you have to find a new one.
On a slightly different tack, I’d suggest the city of Ravenna (or probably most any old European city.) Armed with a car and two different road maps, it still took us over 30 minutes driving around the rather small central city to manage to get to our hotel. One way streets, poor signage, and large areas sealed off to motor traffic made the apparently simple task herculean.
dsquared — look at the picture Kieran linked to under the text “from the outside and in a helicopter”.
Is the name of the building pronounced to rhyme with “ohms” or with “looms”?
Some campuses of the State Univ. of NY are designed with “60’s paranoid architecture” — the pair of long boxy dormitories separated by a courtyard, so I was told when I was at Potsdam, was intended as a corral for rioting students.
The middle hexagon shares a side with both the other two …
What you are dealing with, rather than “a gigantic carbon molecule” as Kieran would have, is 2-methylphenanthrene, a polycyclic aromatic, though that’s not as nice as it sounds. From what you say, there are plans for further methylation, which wont help one bit either. Go to:
http://authors.elsevier.com/SampleCopy/362/S0045-6535(00)00077-1
for some analysis, or, depending on your perspectives, possible blueprints for future architectural developments.
I nominate Le Pavillon Principal at the University of Montreal. The building is enormous and is built into a steep hill so that it has ground floor entrances on four different levels. Furthermore, there was a giant underground conveyor belt that ran from the Metro station at the bottom of the hill - some 30m lower - up to the lower entrances, and a system of tunnels from the new Z-wing that connected the building to the library complex to the west (another building embedded in a hill, with a student entrance on level 0 and a delivery entrance on level 7) and to the humanities buildings (a ten-story multi-building complex) off Boul. Côte-des-Neiges.
When I was a student there, they had just renumbered all the rooms in the complex and so all the doors had two different numbers on them. The trouble was, there was some overlap between the two numbering schemes. The result was that looking for Locale D420 in the physics department could out you in the old D420, which was a women’s restroom in the dentistry department.
d-squared:
_ / \_ \_/ \ / \_/ \_/
There’s an awesomely unnavigable building in the Freie Universitaet of Berlin, but I can’t remember what it’s called or much of its layout (unsurprising really). It was absolutely huge, and contained notional streets that didn’t really help finding one’s way about.
Wean Hall at Carnegie Mellon is absolutely huge; the level you enter on from the main quadrangle area is the fifth floor; and there’s a seemingly simple system for room numbering that soon reveals itself to be inconsistent from floor to floor. And there is a staircase and two elevators, but they’re all contained in one column right at the middle of the building.
I’m always skeptical of claims that a building was designed to be riot-proof, because it sounds like so much folk lore. But whether or not it’s true, Wisconsin’s Humanities building is still a monumentally confusing building — largely because of the way that arbitrary walls in the middle of a floor make it impossible to continue on to the rest of the building, so you have to go back down two flights of stairs, exit, enter through another doorway, and back up the stairs.
“What you are dealing with, rather than “a gigantic carbon molecule” as Kieran would have, is 2-methylphenanthrene, a polycyclic aromatic,”
A carcinogen, IIRC. (polyaromatic hydrocarbons with a “bay” are carcinogenic).
“though that’s not as nice as it sounds.”
They used to call ‘em polynuclear hydrocarbons, but it made the natives nervous, so they changed the terminology.
I’ve always thought you needed a degree in cartography to find a book in Firestone Library at Princeton. Compared to that, my experience with a riot-proof dorm of much the sort other people seem to be talking about was a breeze.
dsquared is right that it is impossible to have three hexagons each of which shares a side with exactly one of the other two. In fact it is impossible to have three polygons of any type each of which shares a side with exactly one of the other two. Ben Wolfson’s picture is of three hexagons each of which shares a side with both the other two.
It is easy to prove dsquared’s claim (this is pretty trivial, if any mathematicians are watching). Suppose A, B and C are three polygons. Suppose two of them share a side; for example suppose A and B share a side. Now if C shares with A, A shares with two, not one. If C shares with B, B shares with two, not one. If C doesn’t share with either, then C shares with none, not one.
QED
I was going to post a comment earlier today about the resemblance between Coombs and the labyrinth in Name of the Rose, but decided it might sound pretentious.
But now that one your cobloggers has mentioned Name of the Rose on the very same day…
I never even figured out the basics of the room numbering system as you’ve described them here; and I was too embarrassed and self-conscious to ask anybody. I used to leave an extra half-hour or more for wandering the halls when I was going to a seminar or workshop in the building.
Michael — it is easy to make three polygons each share exactly one side with each of the others, unless we are required to keep them in the same plane.
jeremy, sorry.
I was a bit confused. dsquared said that “I am pretty sure it is not possible to arrange three hexagons such that each of them shares precisely one side with each of the others.” That’s false, as you say (think of a pyramid), but also not relevant to the original post, at least as I read it.
Kieran said “it is composed of three, three-storey hexagonal blocks each of which shares a side with one of the others.” That, I take to be saying that for each hexagon there is exactly one other hexagon with which it shares a side. I read dsquared’s post too quickly and took him/her to be objecting to that.
What I said is: “it is impossible to have three hexagons each of which shares a side with exactly one of the other two” and that still stands even if the hexagons (or polygons) are not required to lie in one plane.
I am pretty sure it is not possible to arrange three hexagons such that each of them shares precisely one side with each of the others.
Whoops. So much for my lucid prose. “There’s these three hexagons stuck together in a row, kinda.” Gerry does ab initio quantum chemistry (whatever that is) so I am also embarrassed to have even loosely brought up the whole carbon thing.
Michael — yes, you are of course right that it was not relevant to the original post; I was just trying overhard to be clever…
I worked in the Coombs building for several years. It’s a brilliant place to work, as every room has a window to the outside or to one of the courtyards, full of trees and birdlife. If you religiously follow the arrows on the signs at every staircase, it is possible to find your way around without getting lost.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review