Dear Bill

You give a very clear and concise definition of tools which analyze
physical configuration.  But is this adequate to define a 'Space Syntax'
tool?  Is there no test of applicability for the tool?

The  Michael Shoul Memorial Paper in this year's conference
proceedings raises (amongst many other things) the work on 'hedonic
value' (visual pleasure) using information theory to analyze the
configuration of formal features in an object - its complexity and
orderliness.  Is this space syntax?  Surely it is a (valuable) study in
another area, shape syntax.  The measures are configurational but do
not represent spatial relationships.

On the other hand, I understand that there are a number of advanced
programs for detecting faces from spatial information.  These also
analyze the configuration of geometric features, and it turns out that
some of the most important measures are spatial relationships
between physical features, instead of just measurements of physical
edges.    This seems to be a tool for analyzing spatial configuration,
but is it Space Syntax?

Surely the 'space' bit of 'space syntax' refers to something more
specific.  Space is difficult to define, because we can only measure
the solid features which border space.  Perhaps we could say that
space is defined by the movements and inter-relationships of physical
objects.   In this case we know that studies in space syntax use the
word to mean 'space sufficient for people to occupy' or 'space suitable
for people to move through.'  This human significance is essential to
the meaning of Space Syntax, as Ruth Conroy Dalton showed in her
Response Paper at SSS4.

Of course, the basic tools of axial and convex analysis contain this
definition, and go further to define space in terms of co-visibility
between people, along a line-of-sight or within a convex space.  The
Social Logic of Space establishes a science of social space, not just
human space, and not just 'space'.   Although configurational analysis
can be used to study other aspects of the world, and social space can
be studied with tools other than configurational ones, is it really useful
to try to define Space Syntax as 'everything related to configuration'?

I would suggest that there two dangers in trying to do so.  Firstly, the
elastic boundaries of the field-of-study may prevent the development
of a core theory which can be tested, developed and presented to the
public as a way of understanding the world (eg. a Science of Social
Space).  Space Syntax might then be mistaken for a set of tools in
search of a problem.

Secondly, without a theory to define what is significant in the spatial
relationships within cities and buildings, tools will need to analyze
everything about space instead of identifying significant entities to
analyze.  The convex space and the axial line are both such significant
entities, and the use of them is the more comprehensible because of
it.  They carry inherent meaning.  Some recent tools seem to use
enormous computational power as an alternative to finding a set of
simple, significant relationships, and it is not immediately obvious
what meaning can be found in the output.

Causal theories and analytical tools need to dance together to
develop a science.  No doubt this still happens in the space syntax
community, but shouldn't it appear in the definition of a space-syntax
tool?

I write with the confidence of ignorance, but I would be glad to be
corrected.

Regards,   Tom

Thomas Dine
Chassay+Last Architects
Primrose Hill
London NW1 8XY
[log in to unmask]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:56:46 +0000, Professor Bill Hillier
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Dear Jake - Space syntax is the application of 'configurational'
measures
>to spatial systems represented as sets of discrete geometrical
elements,
>whether points, lines, convex elements, isovists, or whatever.
>'Configurational' means 'extrinsic' measures of the relations between
each
>geometrical element and all others, or well-defind subsets of them.
So
>Benedicts isovists are not space syntax, but Depthmap is. This is the
idea
>set out in 'The Social Logic of Space' and it seems to cover the
ground. -
>Bill
>
>
>Alasdair Turner wrote:
>I am thinking perhaps it would be an idea to have a dedicated 'space
>syntax tools' FAQ for this mailbase

;What would count as a 'space syntax tool'?