Introduction Minor boundaries and spatial differentiation

This Visual Note examines how certain small-scale material elements can differentiate spaces, organise behaviour and condition access without resorting to solid barriers, walls or complete enclosures.

Ropes, chains, planters, steps, carpets, changes in paving, walkways and railings do not always physically prohibit passage. Nevertheless, they can create visible distinctions between areas, guide routes, suggest legitimate uses, regulate where people remain or indicate who may gain access immediately, comfortably or in accordance with social expectations.

From this perspective, the note is aligned with an interpretation of soft spatial exclusion: forms of spatial organisation that operate through materiality, visual coding and the regulation of behaviour rather than categorical prohibitions.

These micro-separations also allow us to consider the architecture of power as a logic expressed through seemingly minor, everyday interventions.

Visual Research Record VN-002

01 · Research Question Minor boundaries and spatial distinction

The question is not merely whether a barrier is present or absent, but how difference is spatially constructed. A small change in level, rope, chain or planter may not completely prevent access, but it can alter how a person interprets, crosses, uses or occupies a space.

02 · Analytical Logic Four forms of minor boundary

03 · Group A Ropes, chains and perimeter control

Ropes, chains and organised perimeters need not completely seal off a space to create effective differentiation. They may organise waiting, indicate an authorised entrance, restrict routes or mark a distance between the observer and a space understood to be interior, reserved or subject to specific conditions.

04 · Group B Changes in level and elevated thresholds

Changes in level introduce particularly significant spatial differentiation. Climbing a few steps, crossing a platform or standing behind a railing does not necessarily entail complete exclusion, but it can mark a material transition between spaces and modify the conditions of approach and access.

05 · Group C Changes in surface and guided access

Carpets, mats, changes in flooring and walkways are discreet yet effective devices for constructing thresholds. They mark continuity or discontinuity, guide a particular mode of entry and produce recognisable differentiation even where the physical boundary is minimal.

06 · Group D Planters and separation through furnishings

Planters and other furnishings can create softly enclosed areas, lounge spaces or terraces separated from the open environment without becoming rigid barriers.

This logic is particularly relevant in tourism and luxury settings, where certain spaces remain highly visible to the public while offering differentiated conditions of access, use, occupancy or comfort.

07 · Synthesis of Observed Mechanisms Differentiation without complete enclosure

The sixteen records show that spatial differentiation can take shape through widely differing mechanisms. Some operate directly on movement routes; others modify surfaces, levels, body positioning or the conditions under which people remain.

What they have in common is not a single function or design intention, but their potential to make a difference perceptible between physically adjacent spaces.

08 · Comparative Reading What do these minor boundaries do?

09 · Interpretative Contribution Soft spatial exclusion and the architecture of power

The cases suggest that spatial differentiation does not depend solely on large barriers or explicit prohibitions. It may also arise from minor interventions that visually reorganise space and distribute access, comfort, centrality, circulation or opportunities to remain unequally.

In this sense, soft spatial exclusion can be understood as a logic in which space is divided not only by absolute boundaries, but also through material markers capable of guiding behaviour, making certain rules perceptible and differentiating degrees of access or use.

The architecture of power becomes visible here not only in monumental buildings or overt security devices, but also in micro-elements involved in the everyday organisation of space.

10 · Interpretative Limits What the visual evidence cannot establish

This note documents observable spatial configurations and enables comparison of how particular material devices operate. Visual evidence alone, however, cannot establish design intentions, internal regulations, legal criteria or the subjective experiences of everyone present.

Monaco Visual Fieldwork Archive

The 16 visual records used in this Visual Note come from the Monaco Visual Fieldwork Archive (MVFA), developed through repeated fieldwork in Monaco between 2017 and 2026.

The selection brings together eleven photographs and five video observations chosen for their usefulness in comparing minor boundaries, material thresholds, access conditions and forms of spatial differentiation.

The collection is a purposive visual selection. It does not claim to represent exhaustively all forms of spatial differentiation or exclusion found in Monaco.

© Xavier Reinaldo-Virgili · Monaco Visual Fieldwork Archive (MVFA) · 2017–2026

12 · MVFA Documentation Archival documentation and public repository

The structure, scope and traceability principles of the Monaco Visual Fieldwork Archive are formally documented in:

MVFA — Broader Visual Fieldwork Collection: Scope and Documentation

Open the Broader Visual Fieldwork Collection Documentation →

OSF Research Repository:
Monaco Research Observatory — Visual Research Repository

DOI:
10.17605/OSF.IO/FV293

13 · Research Connections Links to other Observatory research strands

Minor boundaries as spatial operators

The cases gathered in this Visual Note show that spatial differentiation can arise through small, discreet, everyday material interventions.

Ropes, chains, planters, changes in level, carpets, mats and walkways can function as spatial operators: they channel access, make thresholds visible, distribute conditions for staying and differentiate neighbouring areas without needing to separate them through complete enclosure.

This note therefore makes it possible to investigate how soft spatial exclusion and the architecture of power can become visible not only through major control devices, but also through small boundaries that introduce perceptible differences between being outside, approaching, entering and remaining.