Current Empirical Status

75 Cases · 225 Visual Assets · Final Case Scores

The consolidated VAM corpus contains 75 spatial cases and 225 visual assets: 160 photographs and 65 videos. The ten profiles on this page are a public comparative selection from the corpus; they do not constitute a statistical subsample or a case ranking.

Within this selection, six cases are classified as Publicly Permeable Luxury, three as Conditional or Graduated Permeability and one as Displayed but Restricted Luxury. The distribution of these ten profiles must not be used as a substitute for the distribution of the complete corpus of 75 cases.

Contents

1. Purpose & Selection
2. How to Read a Profile
3. Case 01 · Place du Casino
4. Case 02 · Casino de Monte-Carlo
5. Case 03 · Hôtel de Paris
6. Case 04 · Hôtel de Paris
7. Case 05 · Café de Paris
8. Case 06 · Goyard
9. Case 07 · Port Hercule
10. Case 08 · Quai Albert Ier
11. Case 09 · Yacht Club de Monaco
12. Case 10 · Palazzo Leonardo
13. Comparative Reading
14. Interpretative Limits
15. Research Connections

01

Purpose & Selection

The profiles demonstrate how the VAM methodological framework connects to actual spatial units and to the final scores established for each case. The selection prioritises geographical diversity, functional variety, richness of evidence and comparative value.

The selection includes public spaces, institutional thresholds, hospitality settings, restaurants, retail spaces, port interfaces, controlled facilities and private residential access. It is not intended to represent the frequency of each type of setting in Monaco.

02

How to Read a Profile

Each profile presents the Case ID, the macrospace, unit type and Spatial Scope, the final V1–V5 and A1–A5 scores, V/A indices, bands and Matrix Configuration and the Source Assets used.

Evidence and scores remain conceptually separate. An asset may contribute to several dimensions, but does not by itself generate a score. Similarly, an observable barrier does not automatically demonstrate an intention to exclude.

Case 01 · Empirical Profile

Place du Casino — central space and main sightlines

Spatial Scope

Public square and axes under ordinary operating conditions.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The axes and panoramic views facilitate exposure and legibility of the whole setting; the ceremonial arrangement concentrates visual display. Length of stay is characterised as brief.

Accessibility: Passage and presence are free of charge; staff mediation is reflected in perceived legitimacy and rules of use, without turning the square into a private enclosure.

Alternative Explanation

The presence of staff is not, in itself, interpreted as exclusion. It acquires analytical relevance only when there is an observable interaction, instruction or regulation.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 02 · Empirical Profile

Casino de Monte-Carlo — main entrance and access-control system

Spatial Scope

Crossing the Casino’s controlled entrance; not merely approaching the façade.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The entrance arrangement is visible and its function legible; the operational threshold leaves little scope for prolonged observation.

Accessibility: Security and the dress code support the assessment of strong access control. The score incorporates ordinary admission charges and broad opening hours, confirmed by the researcher without specifying amounts.

Alternative Explanation

Some restrictions may reflect security, legal requirements or Casino operations; the VAM records the observable condition without automatically attributing a social intention.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 03 · Empirical Profile

Hôtel de Paris — lobby, interior circulation and relationship with Place du Casino

Spatial Scope

Lobby and first interior transition; reserved areas excluded.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The interior displays luxury prominently and circulation is legible, but exterior exposure and visual continuity are conditioned by thresholds.

Accessibility: The lobby is assessed as having no admission charge, with permanence subject to a recognised role and reception staff mediation.

Alternative Explanation

Staff supervision may serve reception, service and guest-protection functions; it is not automatically interpreted as social filtering.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 04 · Empirical Profile

Hôtel de Paris — Em Sherif: access and economic conditions of participation

Spatial Scope

Ordinary access to and participation in the restaurant.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2021–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The entrance is identifiable and its function legible, with more limited exposure than an open frontage.

Accessibility: Reception, consumption and service hours underpin the assessment. The menu establishes that payment is required; the economic score reflects the assessment confirmed by the researcher.

Alternative Explanation

The documented price characterises the economic conditions of participation in this unit; it does not, in itself, allow conclusions about the financial means of observers or users.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 05 · Empirical Profile

Café de Paris — terrace, boundary and visual relationship with Place du Casino

Spatial Scope

Terrace during open service; closure retained as a comparison.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The relationship with the square allows extensive visual exposure and legibility, with boundaries that partially interrupt sightlines.

Accessibility: The assessment covers the terrace when open during service hours and permanence as a customer. The post-closing image is not averaged with the open condition.

Alternative Explanation

Closure or the removal of furniture may reflect ordinary establishment operations; this must be distinguished from a restriction associated with privilege.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 06 · Empirical Profile

Goyard — frontage, threshold, waiting sign and queue ropes

Spatial Scope

Crossing the threshold after organised queuing.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The frontage is prominent and the ropes make the access arrangement legible; observation next to the queue is characterised as brief.

Accessibility: The waiting sign and ropes justify an assessment of conditional entry. Purchasing is not treated as a requirement for entering.

Alternative Explanation

Queues and ropes may reflect capacity, security or commercial management. The VAM documents the access arrangement without inferring its intention from that alone.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 07 · Empirical Profile

Port Hercule — general panorama and public interface with megayachts

Spatial Scope

Public observation points around the harbour; yacht access excluded.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: Panoramic views and megayachts give the entire setting very high exposure; activity on board is only partially legible.

Accessibility: The assessment characterises public observation as free of charge and prolonged; rules at the harbour boundary are not equivalent to those aboard the vessels.

Alternative Explanation

The visibility of megayachts from public space does not imply access to them or justify inferring aspiration among their observers.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 08 · Empirical Profile

Quai Albert Ier — public promenade and interface with yachts

Spatial Scope

Promenade interface under the temporary control condition described.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The yachts and public waterfront maintain strong visual display; thresholds and controls fragment continuity.

Accessibility: The assessment covers free but regulated passage at the interface under the temporary condition described. The result does not represent the entire promenade on every date.

Alternative Explanation

Port security and event management are relevant alternative explanations for certain observed controls.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 09 · Empirical Profile

Yacht Club de Monaco — perimeter access system

Spatial Scope

Crossing access points into the Yacht Club; not the perimeter promenade.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025–2026. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The architecture and entrances support a prominent visual display, with a recognisable club function.

Accessibility: Entry by membership, invitation or authorisation is assessed. A2=0 describes the absence of ordinary public access through ticket purchase, not an extreme price.

Alternative Explanation

The club’s status and the building’s operational requirements must be distinguished from any broader interpretation of symbolic exclusion.

Return to Contents ↑

Case 10 · Empirical Profile

Palazzo Leonardo — residential identification and private access

Spatial Scope

Crossing into private residential property; not the exterior pavement.

Final VAM Profile

Evidence Years: 2025. The above scores are taken from the final dataset 15_VAM_CASE_SCORES. The assets listed below form the traceable evidence base and must not be interpreted as an independent score per asset.

Empirical Reading

Visibility: The sign identifies the building, but the chain limits visual continuity and the observation of its interior.

Accessibility: The assessment concerns the absence of ordinary public access to the residential interior. The zeros refer to that private unit, not to an inability to view its façade.

Alternative Explanation

Privacy, personal security and residential protection are fundamental explanations of restricted access and must not automatically be reduced to symbolic exclusion.

Return to Contents ↑

Comparative Analysis

Comparative Reading

Visibility and Accessibility Can Diverge

The profiles show that high Visibility does not imply equivalent Accessibility . Port Hercule reaches V=95 and A=95, whereas the Yacht Club access system has V=75 and A=30. Palazzo Leonardo presents a different configuration, with V=45 and A=0 for crossing into private residential property.

Spatial Scope Determines the Meaning of the Score

A macrospace is not coded as a single unit. Place du Casino, Casino de Monte-Carlo, Hôtel de Paris, Port Hercule and Yacht Club include cases with different functions and conditions. Scores always refer to the declared Spatial Scope of the case.

Selected Profiles Cover Three Matrix Configurations

The selection includes examples of Publicly Permeable Luxury, Displayed but Restricted Luxury and Conditional or Graduated Permeability. Discreet Accessibility and Enclosed Privilege do not feature among these ten profiles and also have no cases in the final VAM corpus.

Economic Accessibility Requires Specific Evidence

The A2 score is not inferred from an establishment’s reputation. In cases such as Em Sherif, menu or price evidence forms part of the contextual basis used to characterise the economic conditions of participation.

Alternative Explanations Remain Part of the Analysis

Security, operations, privacy, residential protection, capacity, legal regulation and event management must be considered before interpreting a restriction as an expression of privilege or exclusion.

Interpretative Limits

What These Profiles Do and Do Not Show

• document real spatial units, final VAM scores and traceable evidence;
• the scores come from the validated dataset, not from counting assets;
• the ten profiles do not replace an analysis of all 75 cases;
• Visibility does not permit inferences about aspiration, belonging or conspicuous motivation;
• Accessibility is not automatically equivalent to social integration or symbolic belonging;
• an isolated barrier or regulation does not demonstrate an intention to exclude;
• scores must be interpreted within the Spatial Scope specific to each case.