Re: axial maps
I wonder if Alan and Alasdair are describing different things.
Alan seems to be describing the entire subject of sociology and
relating it to the entire subject of architecture. I find this interesting,
because so much publication on spacesyntax seems to concentrate
on the process of spatial analysis almost as though it did not lie within
an academic context. Spacesyntax is not just configuration then, it is
configuration reflecting a spatialization of society.
Alasdair seems to be describing something closer to a research
program. After all, whilst you may be interested in all aspects of social
phenomena, it is the unique role of Spacesyntax to investigate spatial
configuration as an independent variable WITHIN this field, isn't it? In
your daily research, do you ever investigate social phenomena in
which you do NOT suspect that spatial configuration plays a role?
Well, it might be something that YOU do, but not something that Space
Syntax does otherwise it would be a field of research called
'everything'.
Come to that, Space Syntax is not about the Whole of Architecture,
either. There are various ways in which spatial configuration affects
'what buildings are like' which are excluded from either Spacesyntax
or Social Logic. Many architects pay quite a lot of attention to the way
a pattern of voids admits, reflects and filters sunlight and daylight; this
does not seem to fit within the Hillier / Hanson research (and why
should it?).
The two terms Space Syntax and Social Logic do a pretty good job of
defining the field of research - the interaction between spatial
configuration and social phenomena. If you want SpaceSyntax to
mean 'All of sociology and all of architecture' then we need another
word to describe the limited, theory-based analysis of space which
can do something for decision-makers.
A SOCIAL THEORY
To go a bit further, neither Alan's nor Alasdair's phrases tell us about
'what spacesyntax could do for me' because neither come to any
specific theories about how the world works. Of course, you need
some sort of general theory as a framework for any research, so I
suspect that most spacesyntax papers are written within the
assumptions of some specific social theory of space, perhaps an
implicit one.
Alan notes that there can be many different theories linking social
phenomena with spatial configuration. However, the examples seem
to me to be different TYPES of theory: aesthetic and cultural theories,
but not social theories.
An aesthetic theory of spatial configuration sound fascinating, but it is
distinct from a social theory. I would distinguish the two by saying that
social theories deal with people interacting with each other in a
physically observable way, whereas aesthetic theories deal with a
subjects internal experience (without dragging in the whole of
philosophy which usually seems to stick to aesthetics). You could
certainly look at people's reported aesthetic response to phenomena
such as 'the segragative effects of much modern design'. Or Bill
Hillier’s ideas on facades you mentioned before.
A cultural theory would also be possible, perhaps investigating how
people construe configurational ideas such as the long string of
places to pass through on the way to an audience chamber, which
dictators seem to like (the work of Thomas Markus springs to mind).
Here we are looking at what people report they retrieve in the way of
meaning, not the physical effects on human interaction.
You might object that there is bound to be interaction between social,
cultural & aesthetic aspects (and others such as economic or
technical activity). Of course there might, but it seems to me that the
important point is to keep the theories distinct, so that you can be clear
about what aspects matter on each occasion. For instance, the
"cultural investment of meaning in integration" is always important in a
cultural theory of space, but only becomes relevant to a social theory IF
that cultural meaning interferes with where people go (and thus
interact). You might conceive of a taboo that prevented people taking a
direct route through a kings private territory, but I don't imagine that
working in most societies - Buckingham Palace needs a huge wall to
keep people out! Of course this is sometimes confused by the sloppy
language we use in everyday speech. People say they don't use a
direct but dark alley because "it doesn't' look nice" but I don't believe
this is really an aesthetic judgement - they mean they fear attack
(unwanted social interaction!). How often do you walk the long route
because the short path is ugly?
So as far as I can see, spacesyntax is a social theory in distinction to
an aesthetic, cultural or other type of theory.
A CONFIGURATIONAL THEORY
It is Bill Hillier's outstanding discovery of configuration as an
independent variable in social theory which make Social Logic special
(and the reason we are all interested I suspect).
It is sometimes hard to remember what is meant by configuration, but
I would take it as referring to the relative location of a space within a
system of spaces, rather than a property OF a space. This places
clear logical limits on the way in which configuration COULD affect
social interaction. Configuration does not take into account 'mood'
properties of a space such as decor, nor functional aspects such as
seating, both of which might be conducive to particular social
activities. I can't see that it CAN afford or restrict any social activity
except through human movement and the observation of that
movement.
I know Alan wrote that "Understanding the way that society functions by
only looking at the effects that pass through some form of spatial
mechanism would be partial in the extreme" - but I AM talking about
something partial. When an engineer wants to predict the stress in a
steel beam he does not look to understand the whole of physics - he
(almost always 'he' in my experience) looks for a partial, limited theory
to answer a specific type of question.
Again, this is not to suggest that configurational analysis of space is
limited to the analysis of movement, but that movement is the 'intrinsic
spatial dimension' of society relevant to the configuration of
architectural spaces. This is a meta-theory perhaps, or a paradigm
for spacesyntax as distinct from other configurational research, within
which hypotheses can be developed.
I still believe that if spacesyntax is to have a distinct meaning as a
discrete method of analyzing architecture, the paradigm for
spacesyntax must connect spatial configuration with the movement of
people.
KNOWING AND SEEING
Alan’s second point is also telling : "we also _concieve_ of our
environment and can imagine what places are like from another
persons point of view or another location"
This is perhaps getting to the more detailed level of theory at which
mechanisms are postulated. We act on what we know as well as
what we see. This is why I believe there must be a fundamental
logical distinction between the way space affects strangers and
residents.
Why is this important ? well if you analyse a shopping centre you can
expect to be dealing with people with low familiarity with the space. In
contrast, a block of flats can be expected to be used by very
experienced navigators. The UK fire regulations recognise this: there
is no requirement for fire exit signs within a block of flats because
everyone is expected to know were to go. In some blocks it is hard to
find the stairs, even for the architect who designed them! (I've been
told, of course!)
On the theoretical point - peoples actions may be guided by what they
know rather than what they see, but they are still guided by
perceptions / conceptions pertaining to movement and observation of
movement. If prisoners are kept in their cell by the layout of the
Panopticon, it is precisely because they imagine moving out of the cell
and being observed. It is not the configuration which keeps them
there, it is the belief that observation of their movement WILL take
place. If word got round that the guards had all gone home, I don't
think configuration alone would keep them in their cells!
This also points to the distinction between social & cultural theories of
the same place. I don't doubt that we would 'read' Benthams
Panopticon as signifying 'a prison' even if it was empty & unlocked, but
in social terms it would not act as a prison - prisoners would not stay
there!
So it is likely to be what people KNOW about configuration (and about
the other groups who might observe or obstruct them) which can affect
movement. In dealing with built form, we can only work with the
configuration, and the way it affords observation &
obstruction-by-occupation. This suggests that strangers will be
entirely affected by what they can see, whereas residents may 'know
better.' The work by Saif Ul-Haq seems to be a step toward testing
this hypothesis, although is does not address this issue directly.
This seems to take us firmly back to Alasdair's 'devils advocate'
proposition. What effect does configuration have EXCEPT in that it is
knowable to the humans you are studying? The configuration can
ONLY have an effect on the people who comprise 'society' in so far as
it can be perceived from any particular point, or in the process of
exploration. Any hypotheses developed within the framework would
have to take into account the distinction between
configuration-as-seen and configuration-as-explored.
CLARITY
So today's bid for clarity comprises the following:
1) The two terms Space Syntax and Social Logic do a pretty good job
of defining the field of research - the interaction between spatial
configuration and social phenomena.
2) Spacesyntax is a social field of research in distinction to an
aesthetic, cultural or other field.
3) The paradigm for the research program connects spatial
configuration with the movement of people.
4) Any hypotheses developed within this theoretical framework would
have to take into account the distinction between
configuration-as-seen and configuration-as-explored.
Can anyone agree to those suggestions?
Regards, Tom
Tom Dine
Chassay+Last Architects
Primrose Hill
London
[log in to unmask]
|
