Defining Circulation

I am realizing, as I struggle to piece together my building, that good spaces are largely about circulation. In fact, movement is really the most defining aspect of space: space can only be understood in three dimensions, necessetating movement over time.

This is both shocking and odd, because circulation is often an afterthought, a secondary design feature shoved in where it feels convenient. This is more true, perhaps, for -bad- or standard architecture; thoughtful, well designed spaces typically aim to solve circulation creatively.

While programs have various emphasis (and therefore it is unfair to apply this reasoning to _everything_), modern art museums are typically good examples of this.

It has been interesting to read Koolhaas simultaneously to working with Kruek; through studio, I am learning the conceptual nuances of Modernist space, while digesting the best contemporary criticism.
I understand the anger and frustration towards glorified abstraction of "phenomenal space" and the obsession with disparate program.

It is largely over circulation where OMA battles Modernism; while Mies' spaces enourage free movement over the free plan, Koolhaas often exploits paths, breaks circulation, or revels over mechanical aids.

If I am to let program define the building (which I must), the primary question then becomes : What sort of space, and therefore circulation, does the program necessitate?