Dear Noah & Alan,
I only read Alan's response to Naoh request for advice today, though I had
intended to write a note after I first read noah's message.
I am not completely sure at what level Noah is completing his study later
this year, whether it is PhD, Masters, post -grad or what. I completed my
B.Arch. last year, which you might say is the equivalent of a post.-grad
diploma (or a masters?-or is it just a peculiar architectural thing?!) and I
used some space syntax theory and attended the day course at UCL to obtain
the software and the training. However I was careful to limit its use in my
year's study, because really I don't think devoting a whole year to it or
basing a project completely on it would have been supported or appreciated
in my faculty.
But my overall impression was, (and I don't want to be too discouraging to
Noah)and continues to be now that I am working in practice and wondering
from time to time what the application of Space Syntax analysis might be in
some of the projects I am working on, is that one really needs to have
probably done the Masters at UCL or have studied Space Syntax under or with
some group or tutor that has done so if one is to make any constructive use
of it at the level of real input into a project or real understanding or
insight in an academic situation. The overwhelming impression I was left
with is that Space Syntax is as much an art as a science; an analysis takes
a lot of time to set up methodically, the parameters need to be very
carefully drawn with alot of background knowledge of what has worked before
and where the pitfalls are; and equally the interpretation of the results is
based on a lot of in-depth knowledge and is fraught with nuances of
interpretation.
Those of us who haven't been trained in S/s cannot really apply it with
authority to either real -life or academic situations.
Is this correct?
John O'Flynn
Dublin
----- Original Message -----
From: alan penn <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 1999 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Providence RI study
> Noah,
>
> I'm not sure that Ive seen any responses to your questions so I thought
I'd
> have a go.
>
> >The first question is a logistical one and has to do with the
capabilities
> >of Axman, Pesh, etc. Does this software enable me to perform the kinds
of
> >predictions I discuss below? Will I be able to conduct isovist analysis
> >using this software? Are there any barriers to this prediction which I
> >may be missing?
>
> The answer is that Axman will do a lot of what you need, pesh will be
> possibly of less relevance, but my guess is that you really need isovist
> analysis if as I understand it your focus is on interactions within the
> main body of open square type spaces. Isovist integration will
> differentiate between different internal locations in a large convex
space.
> There is a download site at www.vr.ucl.ac.uk for the isovist program for a
> Silicon Graphics (finding a computer should be possible somewhere in
Brown).
>
> Whether the programs will 'predict' is a research question and needs to be
> evaluated in your own context. I'd be fairly sure that movement flows will
> be predicatble from axial integration, given an appropriate model
boundary,
> but the focus on detailed aspects of behaviour and interaction within open
> public space is not well understood, so you will be doing new stuff.
>
> >
> >Second, how does one control for the effects of weather? Has any work
> >been done on the effects weather has upon behavior in outdoor spaces?
Any
> >recommendations?
>
> What we know about weather is that it does not seem to affect movement
> rates much (except for in downpours) but it does affect static behaviour.
A
> fair amount of work was done on this on open spaces in the City of London
> for the Mansion House Square public inquiry a few years back by Bill. It
> would be interesting to know if this is reproduced in RI - another
research
> question really. The thing to do is to record weather during observations
> and to control for it in your statistical analysis.
>
> >
> >Finally, do you think the time I have proposed to complete this project
is
> >reasonable?
>
> The project overall looks very interesting, but ambitious (how much time
do
> you have?). Qualitative research into behaviour is very time consuming and
> I am assuming that you have local support for this side of the methodology
> and interpretation of your data - you will need it.
>
> I suspect that your hypothesis - that 'integration = impersonal' is
wrong -
> but it depends on a precise definition of what you mean by 'impersonal'. I
> would expect greater levels of interaction of all sorts in more integrated
> spaces. In order to look at this means that you need to put a good deal of
> effort into coding of behaviours to translate observaions into different
> classes that may vary on the personal-impersonal axis before you look for
> any configurational correlates. Finally, a word of warning on campuses -
> these have quite different compositions of users (students) and may well
> behave in a qualitatively different way to general public spaces.
>
> Best of luck and keep us informed on progress.
>
> Alan
>
> >Dear list,
> >
> >My name is Noah Raford and I am planning to conduct a space syntax
> >analysis of public space in Providence, RI, USA for my honors thesis. I
> >have already contacted several of you with specific research questions
and
> >I am very interested in the comments of the general list. Included below
> >is a copy of my research proposal. I must admit that there are no
> >professors at my school with space syntax experience, so this may be a
> >somewhat different approach towards applied research than the UCL takes.
> >Please take this into consideration when you read it and I would greatly
> >appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have.
> >
> >In specific I have three questions which I feel that my proposal does not
> >address:
> >
> >The first question is a logistical one and has to do with the
capabilities
> >of Axman, Pesh, etc. Does this software enable me to perform the kinds
of
> >predictions I discuss below? Will I be able to conduct isovist analysis
> >using this software? Are there any barriers to this prediction which I
> >may be missing?
> >
> >Second, how does one control for the effects of weather? Has any work
> >been done on the effects weather has upon behavior in outdoor spaces?
Any
> >recommendations?
> >
> >Finally, do you think the time I have proposed to complete this project
is
> >reasonable?
> >
> >Thank you in advance for your time and I look forward to your thoughts.
> >
> >Yours,
> >Noah Raford
> >Brown University
> >Providence, RI, USA
> >
> >***********
> >
> >Experimental Design:
> >A Sociospatial Analysis of Providence Public Spaces
> >Noah Raford, November 29, 1999
> >
> >
> >Hypothesis:
> >
> > I hypothesize that there is a specific, quantifiable link between
> >the physical configuration of public spaces in Providence and the social
> >uses and behaviors which occur in them. I speculate that spaces which
are
> >more integrated in the urban network will receive more public usage and
> >will accommodate activities which are more likely to be characterized as
> >impersonal, public behavior. Conversely, spaces which are the least
> >integrated will receive less public usage and the activities which occur
> >there will be of a more intimate, personal nature. I also speculate that
> >within each space, this same relationship will apply when focusing on the
> >specific location of different types of behaviors.
> >
> >Method:
> >
> > Phase One: Prediction
> >
> > To evaluate this hypothesis, I will create a space syntax model of
> >Downtown Providence and its surrounding neighborhoods. This model will
> >generate predictive values for usage based on each space's physical
> >integration and configuration. I will then choose four sites for
> >analysis, one with a high integration value, one with a low integration
> >value, and then two in-between. Currently, I plan on using Kennedy Plaza
> >as the high integration value site, Cathedral Square as the
> >low-integration value site, Brown's campus as the third, in-between site,
> >and the fourth will be chosen based on results from the model. This
model
> >will estimate relative volumes and types of usage based upon the
placement
> >of the site in its urban context. These use magnitude values will form
> >the first part of my analysis.
> > The second part will focus on each specific site and will attempt
> >to predict the location and types of different activities within the
site.
> >I will create a detailed map for the site, with all it's fixed features,
> >and then conduct an axial line analysis, convex space analysis, and
> >isovist analysis to create integration values for specific areas of the
> >site. These values will be used to create a predictive activity map
based
> >upon the physical shape of the space.
> >
> > Phase Two: Observation and Data Gathering
> >
> > Once the predictive analysis has been made, I will begin field
> >verification and data gathering. The first step of this phase will be to
> >create a detailed plan of each site. Then, using video cameras, I will
> >record four 18 hour segments of each space. Two segments will be
recorded
> >on a weekday, two will be recorded on a weekend. It will be supplemented
> >with two in-person observations per site, one on during the week and one
> >during a weekend. Together, this raw data will capture both the number
of
> >people in the space as well as how they use the space. It will thus
cover
> >the objective, observable behavior component.
> > I will then conduct 30 longitudinal observations of individuals
> >within the space, tracking their behavior for 20 minutes. To gather data
> >on the more subjective, individual components of space usage and
> >perception, I will then conduct short a survey with each of these same
> >individuals. The variables gathered will be: proximity of residence,
> >proximity of work, race, age, sex, self-reported personality type,
> >familiarity with the space, their purpose for being there, their
> >impression of how 'social' the space is, and how often they see people
> >they recognize in the space. By combining these individual variables
with
> >the gross scale movement and activity patterns recorded earlier, I will
be
> >more able to posulate a link between these scales and variables.
> >
> > Phase Three: Analysis
> >
> > The first stage of analysis will be to construct an activity map of
> >each space. Using the plan constructed in Phase II, I will divide the
> >space into a one meter grid and graph the average location of different
> >classes of activities. This will then be statistically compared to the
> >predicted values created in Phase I to test my estimates of activity
> >intensity. Then the type of activities will be classified on a scale of
> >the most private to the most public, graphed on the map, and compared to
> >the predicted map to test if there is a relationship to the type of
> >activity. Variables measured will be the number of interpersonal
> >interactions, the length of interactions, group size, and the type of
> >interaction (reading, buying hot dogs, ice skating, people watching,
> >etc.). These variables will be compared between spaces to test if the
> >urban integration values can make accurate estimates of the volume of
> >activity. Finally, each of the variables measured in the survey will be
> >statistically compared to the activity map to determine if these
variables
> >are significantly associated.
> >
> >Timeline:
> >
> > Once the software is received, the modeling will take approximately
> >one week. Research into the possibility of time lapse photography will
be
> >conducted and officials will be contacted for the placement of the video
> >cameras before the semester ends. Once second semester begins on Jan.
23,
> >I will be able to gather the video footage and conduct the surveys. This
> >should take approximately three weeks. Analysis should take no longer
> >than two weeks, and the remaining weeks will be allocated to drafting the
> >final report.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
> Alan Penn, Reader in Architectural and Urban Computing
> Director, VR Centre for the Built Environment
> The Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning
> 1-19 Torrington Place (Room 335)
> University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
> tel. (+44) 020 7504 5919 fax. (+44) 020 7916 1887
> mobile. (+44) 0411 696875
> email. [log in to unmask]
> www. http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uk/
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|