This study looks at the new spatial paradigm emerging in the wake of the new information and communication technologies. Some authors have referred to the “change in landscape” brought about by the new technologies. Others have sought to develop successive models of spatial definition. Thus, Parent & Virilio spoke of the primitive horizontal, the modern vertical and the natural oblique, of the theory of fluids, of acoustics, of engineering (1)It is only relatively recently that the increasing acceleration in human evolution has allowed us to contemplate two changes in landscape: One derived from the First Industrial Revolution, giving rise to the “culture of the object” and, currently, the other, derived from the Second Industrial Revolution, that of computing and communications, which has given rise to what is known as “information culture”. In this context, the informational model has been applied, with considerable success, to the analysis of all sorts of things. Everything can be viewed from the perspective of information. At the same time, information has been invading everything. The costly development of the culture of the object has been replaced by information technology, which is flexible, fast and cheap. These last two changes in landscape share a common characteristic insofar as their relationship with what is real is neither direct nor immediate but mediatised. There is a developing concept of “extensions of the organism” (2), which is now encompassed by the more generic concept of “interface” “Interfaces” have been essential in the development of information culture, where the real object is replaced by computer encryption. Taken to the extreme, this means replacing real spaces with cyberspaces. All of this implies a fundamental re-thinking of the models of spatial definition. The ordered and coherent Euclidean space of our grandparents is being replaced by a space-time in which the discontinuous and ethereal take precedence. It is now a matter of a space that is overflowing with information and consequently increasingly immaterial, in which the most basic topological relationships are being called into question and the occupation of which requires ever more sophisticated means of interaction. “The space in which the human being develops is delimited by the scope of his/her senses. There is a visual space, a sound space, a motor space…These spaces form the person’s environment. They also form the environment or place in which s/he can communicate with other people, since s/he is able to see or hear them. The auditory communication space is therefore not the same as the visual communication space, simply because of the heterogeneity of the different senses and also because of the determinants (barriers of diverse intensity) of the reality surrounding us.” (3) The concept of “communication space” proposed here refers to the spaces between which it is possible to establish a communicative process. Or, to put it another way, the space-time covered by the human senses. “Communication spaces may be understood as phenomenological spaces and are modulated both by the architecture that supports them and by the possible means of communication available, as well as by many other distortion factors” (4) The most recent and notable of these communicative environments is cyberspace. Unlike other communication spaces, it forms a “place” which is accessed by means of various extensions, and would therefore seem to be particularly suitable as a medium for human communication.